ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Anti-Semitism

John Mann: What recent assessment she has made of the level of anti-Semitism in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitic activities, estimates that there were fewer than 10 incidents in Northern Ireland last year. As we approach Holocaust memorial day, I know the whole House will join me in condemning anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred on the grounds of a person’s ethnicity, religion, disability or sexual orientation.

John Mann: I thank every Northern Ireland politician and every Northern Ireland party present in the House today for their active engagement in the parliamentary committee against anti-Semitism. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the interests and concerns of the very tiny Jewish community in Northern Ireland remain an important priority, despite their smallness in number?

Theresa Villiers: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He is right that the Jewish community in Northern Ireland is small—around 200, I believe—but that does not make it any less important to combat anti-Semitism. This is a disgraceful crime. The UK Government take it very seriously, and I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on combating anti-Semitism throughout the UK.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I, too, commend the work of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) in this regard, and I thank the Secretary of State for what she has said today. Does she agree that the attack on anyone’s symbol or identity causes serious problems everywhere—as we have seen in Belfast and on other issues—and will she assure me that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be given adequate resources, if required, to deal with anything that amounts to anti-Semitism arising in Ulster?

Theresa Villiers: It is important that the police take anti-Semitism and other forms of hate crime very seriously, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom—I know they do, as does Justice Minister David Ford. It is also important to reflect on the fact
	that a number of identities are present in modern Northern Ireland, including the Jewish identity. People should be able to practise their identities in a way that is free from oppression by other people.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State is right to stress that there is no tolerable level of prejudice against any minority, no matter how small. Someone who espoused the ethic that no minority was too small to be protected or cherished was Inez McCormack, whose funeral takes place today. Will the right hon. Lady join in paying tribute to the work Inez McCormack did, not just as a trade unionist, but in stressing that the benchmarks for a new fair society in Northern Ireland must include equality, cherishing of difference and the protection of all minorities?

Theresa Villiers: I am happy and enthusiastic to join the hon. Gentleman in paying that tribute. For many years, I have campaigned against anti-Semitism, and I believe that it is a hallmark of a civilised society that it protects minorities. That is one of the vital reasons why we should all continue to be vigilant on the matter of anti-Semitism and other forms of hate crime.

Public Disorder

Lucy Powell: What assessment she has made of the recent public disorder in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Ann McKechin: What assessment she has made of the recent public disorder in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Gemma Doyle: What assessment she has made of the recent public disorder in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Alasdair McDonnell: What assessment she has made of the recent violence in Belfast.

Theresa Villiers: The recent violence in Northern Ireland has been intolerable. The Government fully support the efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in their efforts to combat this disorder and to bring to justice those responsible for it.

Lucy Powell: While the activities and involvement of many young people in the recent disorder has been criminal and wrong, does the Secretary of State agree that what those young people need is some hope for the future, through jobs and training? What will she do to ensure that the Northern Ireland Assembly gets all the support it needs in that endeavour?

Theresa Villiers: The UK Government continue to support the Northern Ireland Executive through the block grant, which is approximately 25% higher in Northern Ireland than it is in England. Our economic strategy is focused on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, providing a boost by getting the public finances under control and
	keeping interest rates low. We are providing support for families by cancelling Labour’s fuel tax rises, and we have provided an income tax cut for over 600,000 families in Northern Ireland.

Ann McKechin: Belfast still sadly remains a city where communities are divided physically by walls and fences. What steps is the right hon. Lady’s Department going to take to help rebuild these communities and to link them together so that the disorder we have witnessed recently will become history rather than something we have to deal with in the present and the future?

Theresa Villiers: In addition to the economic measures I mentioned earlier, there has been a strong focus—by me, my predecessor and the Prime Minister—on working with the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver a shared future by healing divisions between different parts of the community in Northern Ireland. A huge amount was achieved with the Belfast agreement, but recent events demonstrate that there are still significant sectarian divisions, which it is now urgent to address.

Gemma Doyle: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Westminster Government have a responsibility to provide whatever assistance is needed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to deal with matters of national security? Does she view it in that light?

Theresa Villiers: The impact of the recent disorder on resources is certainly a cause for concern. However, the United Kingdom Government are already giving the PSNI significant assistance through the £200 million of additional security funding that we allocated in 2011, and that money is helping the PSNI to deal with the current protests. Not only has it released resources for other forms of policing, but it has enabled the PSNI to purchase a new fleet of Land Rovers which are being deployed directly in policing the protests and combating the violence.

Alasdair McDonnell: The current difficult situation is of concern to all of us. There is significant violence and illegal behaviour, and daily we hear anecdotal evidence of the potential economic withdrawal of some of the hard-earned foreign direct investment that we have received for the past few years. We need a solution. Would the Secretary of State be amenable to a round-table conference with the two Governments and all the Northern Ireland parties to sort out all the issues that confront us?

Theresa Villiers: All Northern Ireland’s political parties must work together to find a political way forward. The violence is unacceptable. The protests need to stop, and be replaced by a political dialogue. I have been urging the parties to engage in such a process, and I welcome the hard work they are doing in trying to set it up. I believe that the constructive meeting that I had with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Irish Foreign Minister last week has provided an impetus for the political parties to continue their discussions on a political solution.

Laurence Robertson: As we have heard, the violence in Belfast has had a bad impact on the employment prospects of people in that city.
	This morning the Northern Ireland Finance Minister announced that he intended to launch an advertising campaign to make people aware that, in spite of everything else, Belfast is a great place in which to work and do business. Is there any way in which the Secretary of State can support him in his quest?

Theresa Villiers: I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, which gives me an opportunity to emphasise that there is much that is positive in Northern Ireland, and that 2013 still has the potential to be a fantastic year for it. There has been a very successful start for Derry/Londonderry as the UK city of culture, the G8 is coming to Northern Ireland, and the World Police and Fire Games, one of the biggest sporting events in the world, are to be held there as well. All that demonstrates the existence of a modern, forward-looking Northern Ireland that has resolved a great many of its problems.
	The violence is counter-productive, and it is damaging Northern Ireland’s image abroad. I will strongly back efforts to bring people back to the centre of Belfast to support the economy there. I urge everyone to recognise that Northern Ireland is a great place for inward investment, a great place in which to set up a business, and a great place to visit as a tourist.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I must emphasise that we have a great deal to get through. We need short questions and short, sharp answers.

Nigel Dodds: May I continue the positive theme? The Secretary of State will be aware of the Belfast Telegraph’s excellent campaign, “We’re Backing Belfast”, which people have joined in supporting. Could the Secretary of State do any more to back the city at this time? Could she, for instance, arrange for meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to take place in Belfast, or arrange for the Cabinet to meet in Belfast in order to show support for it—and, perhaps, take the opportunity to announce economic measures such as a cut in corporation tax?

Theresa Villiers: Those are interesting ideas, and I will pass them on to those who make such decisions. As for corporation tax, the Prime Minister is considering the issue and will make an announcement in due course.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will know of reports that leading members of the Provisional IRA who were formerly involved in its campaign of violence in Northern Ireland are now working with dissident groups there and providing them with expertise. What discussions has she had with the Chief Constable about the matter, and has she asked Sinn Fein what it knows about those people and their involvement in dissident violence?

Theresa Villiers: I regularly discuss with the Chief Constable the serious terrorist threat posed by dissident republicans, and I will continue to do so. The UK Government are vigilant in combating the threat from dissident republican terrorists. They are small in number but they have lethal intent, and unfortunately they also have capability.

Naomi Long: The Secretary of State will be aware that it is not just city centre traders who have been affected by the current trouble. During her visit to my constituency last week, she met representatives of local businesses who have been affected by the disruption. Does she agree that we will only be able to create the conditions for long-term stability and growth on which we can build if the parties in Northern Ireland work collectively, along with both Governments, to develop a shared future and tackle sectarianism?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that the lessons from the past few weeks demonstrate, once again, how important it is that all the elected representatives in Northern Ireland work together to build a shared future and to heal sectarian division. I very much welcome the opportunity to come to the hon. Lady’s constituency and her office, and to meet those who have been affected by the protests. She continues to have my sympathy for the treatment that she has undergone and to which her staff have been subjected.

Vernon Coaker: I join the Secretary of State, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in standing against the recent violence. It is important that Westminster sends a clear message that it is unacceptable. Does she agree with me, and with what other hon. Members have said today, that we need more than just condemnation—we need action? Will she outline what steps she has taken and, more importantly, what steps she intends to take now to deal with these problems?

Theresa Villiers: My focus has been on meeting the people affected by this disorder, talking to the businesses and the communities that have been disrupted by it, keeping in very regular touch with the Chief Constable to give my absolute support to the brave efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in keeping order on the streets, and driving forward a political solution from the political parties. I am in very regular touch with them, urging them to meet to discuss this issue, in order to find a political way forward to resolve these critical issues on identity and build a shared future.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. Of course, as she said, there is positive news, but will she now, with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government, review what has happened? Will they then set out together concrete proposals to deal with the underlying issues, specifically those relating to culture and identity, social and economic deprivation, and sectarianism? In doing that, we can continue to work together to build the shared and prosperous future that we all want for Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, at last week’s meeting with the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Irish Foreign Minister we did review the current situation. I will continue, as I know the Tanaiste will, to press the Northern Ireland parties to make real progress on this situation. It is now vital that we see practical steps towards delivering a shared future and healing those sectarian divides. That is a point I have made repeatedly in pretty much every speech I have made since being appointed. Now is the time for real progress and seeing the Northern Ireland Executive and all Northern Ireland’s political leaders going forward to deliver that shared future that they all very much support.

Violence (Belfast)

Margaret Ritchie: What discussions she has had with the Irish government on the recent violence in Belfast.

Theresa Villiers: I have been in regular contact with the Tanaiste, Eamon Gilmore, in recent weeks. Last Thursday, we met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Belfast to discuss various matters, including recent violence and disorder.

Margaret Ritchie: As well as discussing the violence, has the Secretary of State any plans to discuss the question of a border poll with Dublin and, in particular, the Social Democratic and Labour party’s idea of a long-term financial support framework for Northern Ireland, agreed between London and Dublin, which would survive future constitutional change while, over time, reducing the north’s net dependency on the Treasury? Will she meet my party to discuss such proposals?

Theresa Villiers: I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Lady and her party colleagues. I have not discussed a border poll with Eamon Gilmore recently. My feeling is that the conditions that require a border poll are certainly not present in Northern Ireland, and we have no plans to call one at the moment.

William McCrea: The United Kingdom Prime Minister has a number of times made apologies in this House. In the Secretary of State’s discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic, has she raised the issue of the Dublin Government making apologies concerning previous Republic Governments arming the Provisional IRA and therefore raining more than 30 years of terror and mayhem down on the innocent, law-abiding British people in Ulster?

Theresa Villiers: That is not an issue I have discussed directly with the Irish Government, but the Prime Minister has made it very clear that everyone with an involvement in Northern Ireland’s troubles has a duty to confront their role and address issues raised by the past.

Union Flag Dispute (Belfast)

Gregory Campbell: What steps she is taking in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Assembly to address the issues that have given rise to the Union flag dispute in Belfast.

Theresa Villiers: I have discussed these matters on a number of occasions with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and with representatives from the other main political parties. It is vital that political leaders in Northern Ireland identify ways to reduce community division and build a genuinely shared society.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Is she aware that some of the underlying issues that have led to the flag dispute include getting jobs in the public sector for the Protestant community, cultural differentials between Ulster Scots and Irish and
	parading disputes? Those issues led to the flag dispute and then this morning the police ombudsman ensured that investigations will take place only into the IRA activities of the past. All those issues are causing problems and must be addressed. Will she liaise with the appropriate Ministers in Northern Ireland to address those issues and see that they are resolved?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that there are probably a number of underlying issues relating to the recent flag protests and I am happy to work with the relevant Ministers on all those matters, as I am already doing. The strong message I would send out is that it is far more difficult to address such issues when there is violence on the streets of Belfast. That is why it is essential that the violence stops and the protests are replaced by a political dialogue on a way forward.

Stephen Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State reassure me that, irrespective of the scale of violence and unrest, the coalition Government will always support the democratic decisions taken on the flag issue?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I can give him that assurance. Democratic decisions must be respected; they cannot be changed by rioting. If they are going to change, they should be changed through the democratic process and by dialogue.

David Simpson: Will the Secretary of State congratulate the Unionist forum on its formation? Its task is to try to identify the issues and solutions across the whole of the unrest in Belfast.

Theresa Villiers: It is constructive to have dialogue across the board. The Unionist forum can provide a good opportunity to engage with the loyalist community and I welcome the fact that those heading it up have emphasised that there is a twin-track approach that will involve dialogue with the other political parties and other parts of the community.

David Anderson: May I add to the comments made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the role played by Inez McCormack over many years? In moving the peace process forward, she always said that if we want to move from a shared divided past to a shared united future we must do that in a non-partisan way while recognising that we must compromise. The Northern Ireland parties in this House have attempted to work together, so will the Secretary of State give her commitment that she will ensure that that makes progress?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I will.

Diabetes

Jim Shannon: What discussions she has had with the devolved Administrations on developing a UK-wide strategy on tackling diabetes.

Michael Penning: I have not been involved in discussions as my Department does not have responsibility for diabetes. It is for Health Ministers across the UK, including in the Assembly, to tackle diabetes in their areas.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for those comments. A strategy for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland was started in 2003 to address the time bomb of diabetes. That concludes this year, 2013. Does the Minister agree that there is a critical need for a strategy to continue? What steps can he take to ensure that diabetes will be addressed over the next 10 years as there has been a 30% increase in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years?

Michael Penning: I took a keen interest in the subject when I was a shadow Health Minister and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we must tackle the plague of diabetes that is affecting our communities. Diabetes is not just a health issue, it is a way of life issue and sport, in particular, can bring real benefits. I shall speak to the Minister in the Assembly about diabetes and we will write to the hon. Gentleman.

George Howarth: In any discussions the Minister has with the devolved Administration on a UK-wide strategy on diabetes, will he ensure that he emphasises that type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes are entirely different diseases that should be dealt with separately?—[Interruption.]

Michael Penning: I am afraid that I could not hear a single word from the right hon. Gentleman. Would he be kind enough to repeat his question?

Mr Speaker: Order. There is too much noise on both sides of the House. Let us hear the right hon. Gentleman.

George Howarth: I asked whether in any discussions the Minister has with the devolved Administration, he would emphasise that type 1 and type 2 diabetes are entirely different diseases and that any strategy needs to reflect that in how it deals with them.

Michael Penning: I absolutely agree. Type 1 and type 2 are two completely different diseases, and while we talk a lot about type 2—we need to—type 1 has a devastating effect on communities and families, and we need to look at that, too.

Youth Unemployment

Thomas Docherty: What discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on youth unemployment; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Penning: Youth unemployment is a very serious concern for the Government and for everybody across the House, and every effort is being made to reduce it. It is part of the strategy to make sure that youth unemployment is addressed in the Province, and we will make every effort to do that.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to the Minister for that answer. Given that more than 90% of firms in Northern Ireland have 10 employees or fewer, does he agree with my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor that a tax break on national insurance for new hires would go some way towards helping to bring down youth unemployment?

Michael Penning: Youth unemployment in general is, of course, a matter for the devolved Assembly, but the UK Government must make every effort that we can. Certainly, I know that the Treasury will look at everything that the shadow Chancellor says and does, and at the spending commitments he gives. We must not think that this suddenly happened in 2010: as the hon. Gentleman will know, youth unemployment started to rise in 2004, in the boom before the bust that the previous Administration gave us.

Mr Speaker: Order. There are still far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: Will my hon. Friend the Minister help young earners on low earnings by lobbying the Treasury to put the extra revenues raised from the 45p rate towards reintroducing the 10p income tax rate, which was abolished by the last Government?

Michael Penning: Together with the Secretary of State, I regularly lobby on behalf of Northern Ireland for money. The previous Secretary of State and Minister lobbied extensively to get the £200 million that was needed to make sure that the security situation in Northern Ireland was addressed. It is up to the Administration in Northern Ireland to spend the very generous grant that they get, which is substantially more than England gets.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister agree that, given the problem of youth unemployment and many other economic problems in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein’s call for a referendum seems most inappropriate, and is nothing but a cynical exercise in republican breast-beating? In light of the Government’s new-found enthusiasm for referendums, should there by some chance be a referendum, will he give an assurance that the Government will be firmly on the side of keeping Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom?

Michael Penning: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not wish to be unkind or discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but the question was, and must remain, about youth unemployment. There is no requirement on the Minister to answer.

Stephen Pound: Despite the recent violence that we have witnessed, there is great work being done on the ground to combat youth unemployment and build community cohesion. Much of it is supported by funding from the European Union, through PEACE money. Will the Minister assure people in Northern Ireland that he remains firmly committed to the United Kingdom remaining within the EU, and to Northern Ireland continuing to benefit from PEACE money?

Michael Penning: As ever—[Interruption.] I never knew I was so popular. Making sure that youth unemployment is addressed in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is very important. The issue of the PEACE money, which is part of negotiations at the moment regarding the financial settlement, is way above my pay grade. Whatever happens, we will ensure the best possible deal for the United Kingdom.

Public Disorder (Policing Costs)

Andrew Stephenson: What the cost to the public purse has been of policing the recent protests and disorder in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: I am advised that the additional cost of policing the recent protests is estimated at £3.9 million for the period up to 31 December 2012. That figure does not include costs arising from injuries to officers, or the cost of investigations to bring those responsible for disorder to the courts.

Andrew Stephenson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that at a time of great pressure on public expenditure, additional resources that have to be spent on policing the protests and disorder in Northern Ireland are inevitably money that will not be spent on housing, education or tackling the kind of deprivation that some have suggested fuelled the protests in the first place?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, it is disgraceful that this violence has occurred, and the fact that it has had such an impact on police resources is deeply regrettable. It makes it much more difficult for the police to continue their commitment to community policing and outreach in the community, which is another reason why the violence has to stop.

Inward Investment

Andrew Bridgen: What discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on attracting inward investment.

Michael Penning: We have given assurances, and continue to give assurance, to Executive Ministers that the Government will work closely with them to rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Bridgen: The Northern Irish economy has suffered adversely for many years as a result of the lower rates of corporation tax levied in the Republic of Ireland. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the impact of the Government’s policies of lowering corporation tax and remaining outside the eurozone, and what effect that has had on inward investment in Northern Ireland?

Michael Penning: There are ongoing negotiations for further possible reductions in corporation tax in Northern Ireland, but one of the biggest things that the Northern Ireland Administration and UK Ministers can do is bring people to Northern Ireland to see the great success story there. Only last week, the seven leading Japanese businesses in the UK came to Northern Ireland and were enormously impressed by the progress that we have made there.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nicholas Dakin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 January.

David Cameron: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Kingsman David Robert Shaw of 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. He died in Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham last Wednesday as a result of wounds that he sustained in Afghanistan. He gave his life for the safety of the British people, and his incredibly brave contribution must never be forgotten. Our profound condolences are with his loved ones.
	Mr Speaker, this morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Nicholas Dakin: I am sure that the whole House and the whole country would want to associate themselves with the Prime Minister’s comments about David Robert Shaw and his family and friends at this difficult time.
	On Monday, the Prime Minister stated that the task for our generation was to struggle against terrorism. On Tuesday, his Government sacked 5,600 troops. Why is there such a gap between what the Prime Minister says and what he does?

David Cameron: I think that the hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I do not deny for one second that we have had to take difficult decisions about defence spending in our country. However, let me make this point. At £33 billion a year, we have the fourth largest defence budget anywhere in the world, and it is important that we make sure that we have the right scale and shape of armed forces, and that they have the right capabilities. That is why, in the defence review, we are investing in drones, and investing more in special forces and in key intelligence capabilities, making sure that we have the aircraft we need to ensure that we have highly mobile armed forces. I am incredibly proud of what our armed forces do, and because we are now balancing their budget, they will be better equipped for the future.

Nadhim Zahawi: Sixty-eight years ago this Sunday, the Nazi concentration and extermination camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, was liberated. As we mark Holocaust memorial day, will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that young people in this country always have the opportunity to learn about what took place in the darkest period in our shared history, and will he commend the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust?

David Cameron: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House, and indeed the whole country, in raising this vital issue on this day, and in praising the Holocaust Educational Trust—an absolutely brilliant charity and organisation that makes sure that young people from schools across the country have the opportunity to go and see the places where the terrible events of the holocaust took place. I had the immense privilege this week of meeting a holocaust survivor whose story was truly heroic and truly heartbreaking, but who in her 90s is still making these arguments and making this case so that future generations will learn. We should also learn, not just about the European holocaust, but from what has happened more recently in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and elsewhere that, tragically, there is far too much prejudice and persecution in our world.

Edward Miliband: Can I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Kingsman David Robert Shaw of 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment? He showed the utmost courage and bravery, and the condolences of the whole House go to his family and friends.
	Can the Prime Minister guarantee that if he gets his in/out referendum he will campaign to stay in?

David Cameron: Yes, I want Britain to be part of a reformed and successful European Union. This entire argument is about what is in Britain’s national interests. We want a European Union that is more open, more flexible, more competitive, not just good for Britain, but good for Europe too.

Edward Miliband: I do not think that was quite a complete answer to my question. Let us see if we can press the Prime Minister a bit further about how he is going to vote. Is he saying that if he does not achieve his negotiating strategy, he will recommend—[Interruption.] The part-time Chancellor can hang on a minute. Is the Prime Minister saying that if he does not achieve his negotiating strategy, he will recommend that Britain leaves the European Union?

David Cameron: First, it is very welcome that the right hon. Gentleman is accepting the premise that the Conservatives will win the next election, and interestingly, not raising the fact that the unemployment figures are down once again today. Employment is up by 90,000 this quarter, and the rate of job growth last year was the fastest since 1989. But I answered his question very clearly. I want to see a strong Britain in a reformed Europe. We have a very clear plan. We want to reset the relationship. We will hold that referendum. We will recommend that resettlement to the British people, but the question now is for him: has he got a clue what he would do?

Edward Miliband: The clue is in the title—Prime Minister’s questions. He is supposed to be answering the questions. He has had six months to think about this. It is not too much to ask. The Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is not here, would say unequivocally that he would vote yes in a referendum. The Secretary of State for Education, who is hiding away down the Benches there, has briefed that he wants us to leave the European Union. I am just asking the Prime Minister a straight question: can he guarantee that he will vote yes in an in/out referendum?

David Cameron: Yes, I support Britain’s membership of a reformed European Union. Only the Leader of the Opposition would go into negotiations expecting to fail. We go into negotiations knowing what is best for Britain. Let me put it to him again. We now have a very clear approach: a renegotiation and then a referendum. What is his answer? Let me tell him—he is meant to lead the Opposition, and you cannot fight something with nothing.

Edward Miliband: The reason that those on the Conservative Back Benches are cheering is not because they want to vote yes in an in/out referendum; it is because they want to vote no. That is the reality for the
	Prime Minister. He still has not answered the question. Let me put it another way and give him another chance. We know from his speech this morning that he wants to go off and negotiate for fairness, flexibility and motherhood and apple pie in Europe. Can he name one thing—just one thing—which, if he does not get it, he will recommend leaving the European Union?

David Cameron: I do not want Britain to leave the European Union. I want Britain to reform the European Union. We have set out the areas where we want—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members are shouting their heads off at the Prime Minister. They must desist. Let us hear the answers.

David Cameron: We have been very clear about what we want to see changed. There is a whole series of areas—social legislation, employment legislation, environmental legislation—where Europe has gone far too far, and we need to properly safeguard the single market. We also want to make sure that ever-closer union does not apply to the United Kingdom. These are the things that we are fighting for. Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman again. We want a renegotiation and then a referendum. What does he want? Or does he not know?

Edward Miliband: So four hours since the big speech, the Prime Minister cannot answer the most basic question of all—whether he is for yes or for no. Why can he not answer it? Why can he not say unequivocally that he will vote yes in a referendum? Because he is frightened, because of those on the Conservative Back Benches. The only thing that has changed is that a few months ago, when he said he was against an in/out referendum, is not the situation in Europe, but the situation in the Tory party. Why does he not admit it? He has not been driven to it by the national interest, but dragged to it by his party.

David Cameron: The most basic question of all is: do you want a referendum? I do. Does he?

Edward Miliband: My position is no, we do not want an in/out referendum—[Interruption.] My position is precisely the same as the Prime Minister’s position when we voted together in October 2011 against an in/out referendum. My position has not changed; it is his position that has changed. And here is the truth: after six months of planning a speech on a referendum, he cannot even tell us whether it is a yes or a no—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I said a moment ago that Members should not shout their heads off at the Prime Minister; neither should they shout their heads off at the Leader of the Opposition. They must stop—[Interruption.] Order. They must stop, and his questions must, and will, be heard.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister is going to put Britain through years of uncertainty and take a huge gamble with our economy. He is running scared of UKIP, he has given in to his party and he cannot deliver for Britain.

David Cameron: I have politely to say to the right hon. Gentleman that his whole argument about there being uncertainty is fatally undermined by the fact that he cannot answer whether he wants a referendum or not. Can I give him a little bit of advice? He needs to go away, get a policy, come back and tell us what it is. In the meantime, our approach is what the British people want. It is right for business, it is right for our economy, and we will fight for it in the years ahead.

Gavin Barwell: Around the world, 170 million children under the age of five are stunted. That means that they are so malnourished that it has affected their physical and possibly their cognitive development. The world has enough food for everyone. As leading non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children launch a major campaign against malnutrition, will the Prime Minister tell us what action the United Kingdom will be taking during its presidency of the G8?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, particularly as we chair the G8 this year, and because some of the leading non-governmental organisations, including Save the Children, have quite rightly launched that campaign today. Above all, what Britain will be doing is meeting the commitment we made to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on aid—a commitment that we have made and that we have kept, whereas many other countries have broken their promises. We will be using that money to make sure that we focus on the issues of malnutrition, under-nutrition and stunting, because it is not acceptable, in 2013, that so many millions of families in the world go hungry every day and every night.

Jack Dromey: The British automotive industry is a world-class success story, with 82% of the cars we produce being exported. The key is inward investment, and the key to inward investment is our continuing membership of the European Union. Has the Prime Minister heard the growing voices expressing concern from within the industry over the prolonged uncertainty that his speech this morning will create? Is he beginning to recognise the damage that he might do to our economy and to a sector that employs hundreds of thousands of British workers?

David Cameron: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very welcome that, for the first time since the 1970s, Britain is once again, under this Government, a net exporter of cars. That is something to celebrate, but I simply do not agree with what he says about business. This morning, the Institute of Directors, the director-general of the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses are all coming out and saying that this is the right approach. Let us get a good deal for Britain, let us reform Europe and make it more open and competitive, and let us put the choice to the British people in a referendum.

Duncan Hames: I welcome the Prime Minister’s support for ending hunger, and his use of the G8 leadership for that campaign. Does he recognise the importance of the root causes of hunger, such as the
	land grabs and the use of land for producing biofuels? Does he also recognise the need to ensure that investment in those countries is suitably transparent? Will he use the G8 to seek bold action on those root causes?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. Because Britain is meeting its promises on money for aid, we are best placed to make the arguments about what I call the golden thread, which is all the things that help move countries from poverty to wealth: making sure that there is the proper rule of law, democratic systems, accountability, a free press and property rights. We will be making the argument in the G8. We need greater transparency about land ownership, greater transparency about companies and greater transparency about tax. These are all arguments that Britain will be pushing in the year ahead.

Clive Efford: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government are the first for 30 years not to offer hard-pressed consumers a Government-funded energy efficiency scheme, following the closure of Warm Front last week?

David Cameron: No. The energy company obligation scheme is many times the size of the Warm Front scheme. Warm Front helped 80,000 families a year, but ECO could help up to 230,000 families a year, so it is a bigger and potentially better scheme.

James Duddridge: What assessment has the Prime Minister made of unemployment in my constituency, particularly the fact that more women are in work than ever before?

David Cameron: The point my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. There are now more people employed in the private sector than ever before, and there are also more women employed in our country than ever before. When we look at the unemployment figures that came out today, we see that what is remarkable is that in employment is up in almost every region and unemployment is down in almost every region. There is a huge amount more to do, but clearly over 500,000 new jobs were created in the private sector last year, the fastest job creation rate since 1989. That shows that we are on the right track.

Mark Hendrick: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is fair that Preston city council, which represents one of the areas of highest deprivation and poverty in the country, is receiving a 12% cut in its local government funding, while his own West Oxfordshire district council receives a cut of only 1%? Will he look at that again and give Preston a fairer deal?

David Cameron: Of course, local government right across the board is facing a difficult funding settlement—I do not hide from that—but the figures are as follows: the area formula grant per head in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is £501, whereas in my constituency it is £320. I completely accept that needs are greater in different parts of the country, which is why the figures are different, but I think that the figures speak for themselves.

Gerald Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a landmark speech this morning, which demonstrated serious leadership of our country and leadership on the important issue of Europe, but I invite him to agree with me on this issue: it is not simply the United Kingdom that is seeking to renegotiate the treaties, because there is also a serious imperative on those members of the eurozone that have introduced the disastrous single currency policy into Europe, which has caused economic chaos. They are the ones in need of treaty renegotiation, not just us.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. The point he makes is correct: there is a big change taking place in Europe because of the reforms that are necessary to deal with the single currency. That is why treaty change and change in Europe is coming. There is also already a big debate in Britain about our role in Europe. I think that politicians have a choice: we can either walk towards that, try to shape that choice to get a good deal for Britain and make changes that will benefit all of Europe, or we can stick our heads in the sand, as the Labour party is doing, and hope that the whole thing will go away.

Michael Weir: Why does the Prime Minister think that Scotland’s two-year referendum process is too long but that his five-year Euro-marathon is just fine?

David Cameron: There is a very easy answer: the Scottish nationalists, in my view, misguidedly want to leave the United Kingdom as it is. I will be arguing, as will Members right across the House, that Scotland should stay in the United Kingdom. What I want to see in Europe is a changed Europe. Then we ask the people.

Mark Pawsey: Despite his busy morning, I am sure that the Prime Minister will have seen today’s report from the Department for Communities and Local Government highlighting the huge savings that can be made by turning around the country’s most troubled families, such as the £224 million saved by councils in Greater Manchester, which equates to £32,000 per family. [Interruption.] What is he doing to ensure that these lessons are put to good use by local authorities across the country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I do not understand why people are trying to shout down what should be a cross-party initiative to try to deal with the most troubled families in our country.
	One council spent up to 20% of its budget on just 3% of its families. This is a problem affecting all local authorities right across the country, and I very much commend the approach that the Communities Secretary is taking—to bring together local councils and work out how we can help these families solve their problems and thus reduce a major impact on taxpayers as well.

Louise Ellman: The Government’s welfare Bill will plunge 200,000 extra children into poverty, and children in places such as Liverpool are already suffering. Yet the Government want to make the poor go away by redefining poverty. Does the Prime Minister really think he is going to get away with that?

David Cameron: What I would say to the hon. Lady is that the introduction of universal credit is going to reduce the number of children living in relative-income poverty by around 250,000. Those are the figures.
	On the issue of welfare, we face a clear choice. Given that in-work benefits have gone up by 20% over the last five years compared with just a 10% increase in wages, we believe that it is right that welfare benefits should not continue to go up ahead of wages. I note what Labour have done this week: great sound and fury, voting against the Bill and saying it is completely wrong, but completely refusing to reverse it. That is the complete policy vacuum that we face from the Labour party.

Dan Rogerson: Given the Prime Minister’s keen interest in single markets, will he look at mortgage lenders restricting legal work to a small number of larger firms and depriving local practices of the work that keeps them at the heart of local high streets in a thriving small business economy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I will look closely at this. We do want to see a competitive market in financial services and conveyancing. It is a major issue in our economy at the moment to get that mortgage market moving.
	There are good signs, as the Governor of the Bank of England said last night, that credit conditions are easing, but we need to make sure that they are easing for people who are trying to buy their first flat and first home, who do not have a big deposit or a lot of help from the bank of mum and dad. We need to make sure that we are on their side.

Jack Straw: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the Prime Minister justified very large cuts in defence spending, with 5,000 troops being sacked right now, on the basis that he had had to face some difficult decisions on expenditure. But those decisions were made in 2010. The security risk facing this country is now much worse, as he himself has acknowledged and as many of his own hon. Friends fear. Given those threats, including in the Sahel, is there not an overwhelming case for looking again at the strategic defence review and ensuring that our troops have the numbers needed to justify our defence?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The point about our defence reviews is that they are every five years, so there will be the opportunity to look at this all over again. What I would say to him about the level of risk—I made this point in my statement to the House on Monday—is that the risks are changing. We still face the biggest risk from the Afghanistan-Pakistan area, but the proportion of the risks that we face from that area has declined, so we are able to use resources as we draw down in Afghanistan to cope with the other risks that we face.
	The overall point is absolutely that, yes, we are going to have a smaller regular Army, although the extra reserves will mean that the overall level of our Army hardly changes size. But they will be better equipped, more capable, more mobile and more capable of dealing with the modern threats that we face.

Graham Stuart: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his speech on Europe this morning. This Prime Minister has a history of going in to bat for Britain; the Labour party has a history of going in and surrendering things such as the rebate. Is not the big difference between that side and this that this side trusts the people and that side wants to deny them a say?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Frankly, the British public have seen treaty after treaty introduced to this House, passing powers from Westminster to Brussels. They have seen a huge change in the European Union over the last 30 years. They see a big change taking place because of the eurozone, and that is why I think it is right to resettle our relationship with Europe and then to trust the people.

Ian Lavery: As with phone-hacking, blacklisting has destroyed the lives of many innocent people. Recent revelations show that the secretive, serious abuse of powers involved in blacklisting continues with the involvement of the police and the security services. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate investigation into this scandal, which has ruined, and continues to ruin, the lives of many hard-working men and women and their families?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the issue that the Opposition will be raising today in their debate. Let me say that the blacklisting that occurred was a completely unacceptable practice, and the previous Government were right to bring in legislation to make it unlawful. We have seen no evidence that the blacklisting regulations that were introduced are not doing their job, and the company responsible was shut down in 2009. However, I welcome the openness and frankness with which Labour is using an Opposition day debate to look at something that went wrong while it was in office.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend insists on five excellent principles, including democracy based on national Parliaments, and he rejects ever-closer union. Other member states want to go ahead with more integration and are demanding it. Last year, on the fiscal compact, they ignored his veto and went ahead, irrespective of the rules of the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what will happen if, by next spring, they insist on going ahead with their own intended proposals, and what will he do in response?

David Cameron: First of all, I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. I believe that what is going to happen is that the eurozone countries do need to make changes to the European Union, as I put it in my speech this morning. They are changing the Union to fix the currency. That is what President Barroso’s report is about and what the four Presidents’ report is about, and it poses quite wide-ranging treaty change. I think this gives us the opportunity and the right to argue that for those countries that are not in the eurozone—and frankly, I believe, are never going to join the eurozone—there are changes we would like, not just for ourselves but for a more open, competitive and flexible Europe. So there
	is going to be change in Europe. The eurozone countries do need to make changes, but we should not back off from pushing forward our agenda as well.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that there can be nothing more gruesome than to see him headed out of austerity-riddled Britain to wine and dine at Davos with 50 top bankers who helped to create the economic crash and several hundred tax-avoiding millionaires? Does it not prove the theory that if you want to identify a posh boy, look at the company he keeps?

David Cameron: I seem to remember that last year I ran into the Leader of the Opposition, but we will leave that to one side. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I think that when he sees the speech I am going to be making in Davos, which will be arguing that we need greater transparency over tax, greater responsibility over the tax avoidance and tax evasion issues, and greater transparency about companies and about the land issue we were speaking about earlier, he might even find that he agrees with some of the things I am going to say.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Prime Minister cut through the irrelevant arguments coming from the Opposition and give the very simple message to the British people that if we have a Conservative Government after the next election, they will have their say in a referendum on Europe, but if we do not have a Conservative Government, we will not have a referendum?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I believe it is right to resettle our relationship with Europe to make it more open, more competitive and more flexible, to make us feel more comfortable inside the Union, and then to give the British people the in/out referendum they deserve.

Julie Hilling: Can the Prime Minister confirm that 3.4 million families with someone who is disabled will be worse off as a result of his benefit uprating cap? Why is he making life more difficult for these families?

David Cameron: First of all, I would say to the hon. Lady that disability living allowance is not included in the cap, and disability living allowance is not related to people’s income; it is actually related to people’s needs. If we look as a whole at what we are doing with disability living allowance and the personal independence payment, we see that the overall the amount of money we are spending on disability is going to go up and not down.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend’s admiration for the economic and political wisdom of our noble friend Lord Heseltine is well known. In the light of my right hon. Friend’s speech this morning, will he consider inviting Lord Heseltine to conduct an inquiry into the consequences for the United Kingdom if we leave the European Union?

David Cameron: I always listen closely to what Michael Heseltine says and I am a huge fan of his plans for an industrial strategy. On the issue of Europe, we
	have not always agreed. He was a leading proponent of Britain joining the single currency and I have always been opposed to that. On the issue of the referendum, I gently remind my right hon. and learned Friend that an in/out referendum was very much part of his manifesto at the last election, but in the interests of coalition harmony, I think we will leave that to one side.

Geraint Davies: A Swansea constituent of mine with a chronic medical condition tells me that he has just £20 a week to spend on food and clothing after paying his utility bills, and that after the welfare cuts in April he will have just £2 a day. If the Prime Minister believes that we are all in it together, will he agree to review the impact of the welfare cuts on the very poorest, so that my constituent’s sacrifices are in line with his own?

David Cameron: I will look very closely at what the hon. Gentleman says and the circumstances, but it is worth making the point that, if we compare 2013 with 2010 in terms of the level of key benefits, we will see that an unemployed person on jobseeker’s allowance is getting £325 more this year than in 2010, that a couple on jobseeker’s allowance are getting £500 more and that a single, out-of-work mother is getting £420 more, so what the Opposition try to do week after week—paint a picture that we have unfairly cut welfare—is simply untrue.

Richard Fuller: Health inequalities in the country are persistent and damaging. Recently the Department of Health announced a 5.5% increase in its allocation to local authorities for their public health responsibilities and a 10% increase for Bedford and Kempston. Does the Prime Minister agree that those funds, locally directed, will go a long way to help tackling long-term health inequalities?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. For many years public health budgets were raided in order to deal with issues and problems in the NHS. Because we put in place an increase in the NHS budget—we have also ring-fenced some of the public health budgets—we are able to make sure that we tackle some of the real problems, such as smoking, diabetes and other issues, that will put enormous pressures on our health service in the long run.

Robert Flello: The House has heard that the Prime Minister is looking forward to meeting people from national and international banks in the next few days. When will he visit a food bank?

David Cameron: First of all, let me once again praise what food banks do in our country and let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that the use of food banks increased 10 times under the last Labour Government.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to all the athletes who took part in the British transplant games held in my constituency? Linked to that, will he encourage people to register for organ donation, which will help to save lives?

David Cameron: I certainly pay tribute to all those who took part in the British transplant games and to the many volunteers who made the games such a success. Gillingham did a fantastic job in hosting the games and my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. They are a testament to the benefits of transplantation and I would encourage people to do as he says.

Helen Jones: Seventy-seven of Warrington’s young people with the most complex special needs face being without places next year because of Government cuts to post-16 high-needs funding. Why should the most vulnerable young people in my constituency pay the price for the Prime Minister’s economic failure?

David Cameron: First of all, let me make the point to the hon. Lady that the reason we are having to make cuts is because of the mess left by her Government. No one wants to have to make the difficult decisions that we have had to make in government, but I would argue that, when it comes to helping the disabled and the most vulnerable, this Government have always looked after them.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Crispin Blunt.

Crispin Blunt: Pitt the Younger said that
	“Europe is not to be saved by any single man”,
	and then correctly went on to predict that England would
	“save Europe by her example.”
	I believe that my right hon. Friend is in danger of contradicting Pitt, because his example today and his exertions over the next four years stand the best possible chance of rescuing the European Union for both Europe and Britain.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. He makes an important point, which is that Britain’s agenda is not one of simply saying, “This is what Britain wants and if we don’t get it we will leave”, it is an agenda that is good for the whole of the European Union. We face a massive competitiveness challenge from the rising countries of the south and the east, and we must accept that Europe at the moment is not working properly—it is adding to business costs, adding to regulation, and we need to change that not just for our sake but for that of those right across the European Union.

A-level Reform

Elizabeth Truss: Today we have announced changes to A-level qualifications. As the key qualification for progression to higher education, it is clear that we need A-levels that are robust and rigorous. A-levels need to provide students with qualifications that match the world’s best and that keep pace with the demands of universities and employers. Reports from the Royal Society, SCORE—Science Community Representing Education—the Nuffield Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and many others, have identified significant problems with A-levels. I urge Members to read a blog by Fields medallist Professor Tim Gowers at Cambridge on some problems with maths A-level—problems that the Cambridge university maths project will address.
	The Government inherited a system in which students start A-levels in September and immediately start preparing for exams in January. Pupils spend too much time thinking about exams and resits of exams, which encourages a “learn and forget” approach to studying. We want to end the treadmill of repeated exams that do not properly test advanced skills such as extended writing and mathematical problem solving. We want questions that encourage students to think and prepare for university study, not a sat-nav series of exams. The way that the Labour party repeatedly calls such skills “old fashioned” shows how totally out of touch it is with universities and businesses. Does it think that silicon valley wants people who can understand calculus and linear algebra, or students who turn up saying, “Don’t worry, we can Google everything”?
	The Secretary of State has written to Ofqual chief executive, Glenys Stacey, setting out plans for changes to A-levels, and I will make copies of the letter available in the Library. In future, A-levels will be linear—taken over two years with students sitting their exams at the end of the course. That will lead to students developing deeper subject knowledge and greater intellectual maturity over two years of study. Ofqual, the exams regulator, has already announced its decision to remove the January exams from September 2013. The AS-level qualification will remain but will be redesigned as a stand-alone qualification. It will be as demanding as an A-level, but cover half the content. We expect that it will be delivered over either one or two years, so institutions can decide what is best for their students.
	The Government will be stepping back from the future development of A-levels. All students should have access to qualifications that are highly respected and valued by leading universities. Universities will now have a greater role in how A-levels are developed. Leading academics have been clear that there are real problems with current A-levels, which they say do not equip students with the skills and knowledge needed for degree courses, including extended writing and research skills. We are pleased that the Russell Group—24 of the UK’s leading universities—has agreed to lead that process. The group has welcomed the opportunity to be involved and is considering how best to provide advice to Ofqual on both the content and the assessment of A-levels. The group will focus on those A-level subjects that are most commonly required for entry to our leading universities—
	the facilitating subjects: maths and further maths, English literature, physics, biology, chemistry, geography, history, and modern and classical languages.
	We expect that the first new A-levels in facilitating subjects will be developed for first teaching in September 2015, with first exams sat in 2017. The Russell Group will seek the views of other universities as well as engaging with the relevant learned societies. Ofqual will lead a post-qualification review process each year, which will also involve the Russell Group.
	The Department for Education is now stepping back from A-levels. A-levels had a global reputation before politicians took control. The Government are giving control back to universities. Furthermore, there is what the head of Stanford has called a “tsunami” heading towards the education world—the tsunami of the world’s best universities putting their best content and new online courses free on the web. This is a revolution that the DFE cannot, and should not seek to, control. The tsunami will raise the importance of advanced skills tested in rigorous A-levels, which the Labour party simply does not understand.

Kevin Brennan: May I thank the Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it? I understand that the Secretary of State is rather busy today, which is why we have her and not him, and why I am speaking rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—[Interruption.] I am not being patronising. I have welcomed the Minister’s statement.
	It is somewhat ironic that the cause of the Secretary of State’s busy afternoon is that he has been summoned before the Procedure Committee to account for his Department’s failure to answer parliamentary questions. In effect, he is not here for his examination because he is in the headmaster’s study for failing to do his homework. As the part-time Minister for Schools does not do exams, the hon. Lady has made the statement, and I am glad she did so.
	The Secretary of State first announced his plans to scrap AS-levels in July 2010. He now says that AS-levels will not be scrapped as such, but just rendered irrelevant by the fact that they will not count towards a final A-level grade. To describe that as a dog’s dinner would be an insult to the pet food industry. It is no wonder that leading universities are opposed to the change.
	Why, when the Secretary of State says he wants to consult Russell Group universities on exam reform, has he completely ignored its opposition to this emasculation of AS-levels? Dr Geoff Parks, director of admissions at Cambridge university, has said:
	“We are worried…if AS-level disappears we will lose many of the gains in terms of fair admissions and widening participation that we have made in the last decade.”
	He warns—Government Members should listen to this—that:
	“We are convinced that a large part of this success derives from the confidence engendered in students from non-traditional backgrounds when they achieve high examination grades at the end of year 12”.
	The question the Opposition want the answer to is this: why are the Government treating the views of admissions tutors on what helps state schools pupils to gain Oxbridge
	admission with such total contempt? That view is shared across the university sector—it is the view not just of Cambridge university, but of the million+ group and Universities UK.
	In addition, the Secretary of State says he wants to create “facilitating subjects” in A-level that are ready for teaching in 2015, but they will only be in the EBacc subjects. Yet again, there is no value for creative subjects or computing and engineering. What has he got against those subjects? His plan means there will be two types of A-levels: one designed, blessed and endorsed by him; and another that is seen as less valuable—once again, that is a two-tier system from the past.
	Anyway, what is the Secretary of State doing designing exams? Is he going to write the questions and mark the papers too? Is he overstepping his powers? Is that what the Minister meant in her statement by “stepping back” from the design of A-levels? Are the plans an order from the Secretary of State or just an expression of preference? Given the widespread opposition to his plans, we need to know their status.
	Today’s statement, as so often, is backward looking, and for the few and not the many. Let us have exams that open up life chances rather than reforms that will slam the door of opportunity in the face of the many.

Elizabeth Truss: It is absolutely no surprise that the Labour party opposes any change to our system: they are the educational reactionaries; we are looking to the future. We are looking to compete in the modern world, which is why we have leading universities, such as Cambridge and Imperial, helping us to develop the new curriculum. The Opposition oppose any change; they want students to be on an exam treadmill at age 16, 17 and 18. We want students to have the opportunity to think, to learn, and to study subjects in depth; they just want constant exams.
	We have discussed these changes with the Russell Group, which is bringing forward proposals and leading these reforms. I have also been in conversation with Universities UK and the 1994 Group, as they want to be involved too. I suggest that the Opposition get with the programme, otherwise they will be left behind even further. Let us not forget what happened under Labour Governments. Let us not forget Curriculum 2000, which saw a drastic reduction in the number of students doing maths A-level—down 20% in two years. We are now the country with the lowest number of students who are studying that important subject in the entire OECD.

Graham Stuart: My feeling has always been that our children are over-examined, and I had a certain prejudice against AS-level as we go from GCSE to AS-level to A-level, but I was struck, talking to schools in my area and elsewhere, by head teachers saying that the confidence the AS-level brought to some pupils was a benefit. We should, therefore, be careful about any reforms and make sure that we can carry everyone forward. We should encourage as many pupils as we can to think deeply, but make sure that we keep everyone on board. Will the Minister tell us what assessment she has made of those risks?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. One thing I would point out to him is that 75% of universities offer places based on predicted
	grades at A-level, rather than on AS-level results. The big increase in participation at A-level took place in the 1990s, before Curriculum 2000 was introduced. That was when we saw a massive increase in the number of students going to universities, particularly from low-income backgrounds.

Liz Kendall: If the Russell Group universities tell the Minister that exams at year 12 encourage state school pupils to go on to apply and attend those universities, will she change her mind?

Elizabeth Truss: The Russell Group universities are keen to lead and be involved in this process, because they recognise, as do many academics I have spoken to at all kinds of universities, that A-levels are not fit for purpose in relation to the deep study that students need to do. The whole problem with AS, and then A2 following on, is that students are constantly examined, rather than having the opportunity to study subjects in depth. It is absolutely amazing that the party that complains about too many exams is opposing a move to enable students to have more time to study. All the university academics I have spoken to like the idea of having an extra term where students can be studying and not doing exams.

Claire Perry: As a former comprehensive school pupil who was lucky enough to study A-levels and go to one of the world’s leading universities, I know how important it is to make sure these opportunities are open for all. We have some of the finest professors and universities in the world teaching physics, engineering and maths, and they tell us that they simply cannot get the quality of British children in to study those qualifications. Will the Minister assure us that she is talking to those universities, and that these changes will ensure we have more home-grown mathematicians, engineers and entrepreneurs in the future?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right: we have some fantastic universities. That is why we are so excited that they are getting involved in developing new qualifications. Not only are they helping us with new qualifications—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) should actually speak to some of these academics and maybe he will get a slightly less biased picture.

Kevin Brennan: I do.

Elizabeth Truss: Well, I do not who he was talking to. The point is that not only are we developing new A-levels, we are also developing a new mid-level maths qualification with Mathematics in Education and Industry and Tim Gowers, which I am very glad the Opposition support.

Barry Sheerman: May I say to the Minister that, as someone who is very interested in education and has been in this House for some years, I have never heard a statement so aggressively and unpleasantly delivered? Of course we need to reform our qualifications and there were some criticisms of A-levels. However, if she looks at the record, she will see that, historically, the way to do that is to base it on
	evidence from leading people, not just picking bits from people to quote in support of one’s position. We could have had a cross-party, bipartisan approach to this issue, led by someone such as Ken Baker, but we will not get it from this sort of aggressive attitude.

Elizabeth Truss: What I would say in response to that is that I did not see much consultation taking place when Labour introduced Curriculum 2000, which saw a massive reduction in the number of students studying maths. Comprehensive students are now half as likely to do A-level maths as their independent school counterparts, mainly as a result of the Opposition’s opposition.

Dan Rogerson: Having listened to the Minister’s statement, I hope she will ensure that all universities have a place in the process and not just the Russell groupers, which, as she has outlined, will be leading it, and that, in setting the overall framework for a qualification, the Government will not seek to micro-manage how it is assessed, to ensure that there is room for things such as properly assessed coursework, which will prepare students for university, where they will be expected to do more extended work.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have spoken to a number of universities, both in the Russell Group and outside, as well as the 1994 group and Universities UK, and I am absolutely clear that we need subject experts from across all the universities to be involved in the process, so that we get A-levels that reflect the broad consensus across universities. He is absolutely right that in subjects where it may be appropriate to have different methods of examination—for example, art—we should look at that, too. We will be flexible according to the subject and we are certainly very interested in getting all universities on board.

Nicholas Dakin: I was interested to hear the Minister say that she wanted questions that encouraged students to think. I am afraid that that is what is already going on in our schools and colleges: students are thinking. Comments such as hers denigrate the excellent work that young people and the people working with them are doing now. Does she accept that A-levels are about more than preparation for Russell Group universities? She is in real danger if she models her curriculum change only on the direction of Russell Group universities, not on the panoply of need of all our young people.

Elizabeth Truss: I am afraid that, according to academics in universities, too many of the questions set in today’s A-levels do not allow long responses. In mathematics and physics they do not have multi-step problems that encourage students to think through answers and are very much more laid out than they were in the past. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at past papers and also leading countries—

Nicholas Dakin: I’ve looked at rather more past papers than you have!

Elizabeth Truss: I do not know if that is entirely true if the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge the changes that have been made.
	We also need to ensure that examiners are able to exercise judgment in the way they mark questions. That is important as well.

Rob Wilson: Could I just say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that if my hon. Friend the Minister had been a man, he would not have criticised her for making this statement?
	Too many top universities have become too elitist; therefore, top professions have become the same—through no fault of their own, but through the subjects that people are guided to study. I welcome this statement. Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that it will result in more disadvantaged young people going to our top universities, which is the acid test of whether it has been successful?

Elizabeth Truss: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on his work with the fair access to university group, which encourages students to study the rigorous subjects that will help them to get into top universities. One of the things we are also looking at is the accountability system and how we show what subjects students are studying, to encourage more students from different backgrounds to study subjects such as modern foreign languages, sciences and maths, where there is a particular gap in participation between those students and students at independent and grammar schools.

Gloria De Piero: My constituency is way down the bottom of the league table when it comes to participation in higher education. How will today’s statement help to address that?

Elizabeth Truss: Today’s statement will encourage students to take up subjects by giving them much more in-depth knowledge of those subjects and more time to study and learn, rather than having them feel that they are constantly examined between the ages of 16 and 18. At the moment in our examination system, we have tests at 11 and examinations at 16, 17 and 18. That is a very unbalanced system. I think that a system that encourages teaching, learning and in-depth study will be really attractive to students.

Andrew Percy: Having attended one of the poorest-performing schools in one of the poorest-performing authorities in the country, before going on to study A-level and then teaching the subject that I studied at A-level at both AS and A-level, I can confirm that there was certainly a diminishing of that qualification over the time I went from studying to teaching it. However, there is still a place for AS-levels and I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend acknowledge that. Can she tell us a little more about her vision for the AS-level qualification?

Elizabeth Truss: We are keen to encourage more breadth at A-level. We want to see the development of high-quality AS-levels that students can study over one or two years. They will have the same content level as A-levels, but half the breadth. We are also developing
	new qualifications—we are asking other people to look at those—such as a mid-level maths qualification, which will enable students who do not want to do a full maths A-level to go on to do that instead. In addition, we are encouraging extended project qualifications, so that students in sciences and arts can demonstrate extended writing as well. It is part of our intention to encourage greater breadth, particularly so that students doing sciences get more opportunities to do extended writing and students doing arts and social sciences are able to study maths.

Sammy Wilson: As a former teacher and an A-level chief examiner, I recognise many of the criticisms that the Minister has made of the exam system and I would be broadly supportive of the views she has expressed. Given that there is a big movement of students between Northern Ireland and England and between England and Northern Ireland, and given that Northern Ireland has its own exam board, what arrangements has she put in place for the consultation involving the universities to include schools and educational decision makers in Northern Ireland?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which I will certainly take up with my counterpart.

Tony Baldry: For many of us, the first year in the sixth form was one of the best years of our lives. Apart from The Who and The Rolling Stones, it was also a year without examinations, the first time in our lives that we were able to study a comparatively small number of subjects and a good year to learn how to study. For the life of me, I fail to see how it is progressive to expect students simply to take examinations every year. Why should the first year of the sixth form not be a year in which pupils have the opportunity to spread their wings, start to study a small range of subjects and do so with some skill?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things about moving up to A-level is that it is a new level and an opportunity for students to study independently and be able to think. I remember from when I studied for my A-levels that it sometimes takes time for the penny to drop in more challenging subjects such as physics and maths. Constantly measuring students during that process has put them off. In my view, one of the failings of Curriculum 2000 was that many students dropped out of subjects such as maths after a year because they had not yet reached the point—the “Eureka!” moment—when the subject had sunk in.

Andrew Miller: The Minister kindly appeared before the Select Committee on Science and Technology and gave evidence in our inquiry into engineering skills, which will be published shortly. In taking that evidence, we covered some of the ground being explored today. Will she now give a commitment that before she closes her mind to the methodology applied to science and engineering practicals, she will take the widest view from across the learned societies, including the Royal Academy of Engineering, as well as engaging with the universities sector?

Elizabeth Truss: Yes, I would like to do that. We are working on the plans to make sure that more students study maths at the 16 to 18 level, as this has been one of
	our historic problems in failing to get more students into engineering. I am very committed, and I would be delighted to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her compelling statement, and I advise her to ignore the ridiculous remarks of the former Chairman of the Education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). Is the Minister aware that universities across the country will welcome this statement because it means a restoration of integrity to the system and a return to the gold standard? Does my hon. Friend agree that we must make sure that we get schools on side? Given that we share a borough, will she join me in a programme of visits to secondary schools in west Norfolk?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Norfolk Friend for his question. He is absolutely right to say that we need to restore the link between universities and schools, which I think has been lost. It has meant that our school exams have not necessarily caught up with the latest research in the universities. It is so important to keep up with the cutting edge because we are competing against countries that are rising in the world. We need to make sure that we are linking to our leading educational institutions such as Cambridge university, which is not too far from us. I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in a programme of visits; I am starting with Downham Market high school on Friday.

Diana Johnson: Evidence-based policy making is something we can all support, so will the Minister provide us with the hard evidence that these plans will widen participation, particularly in constituencies such as my own in Hull?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. At the moment, the evidence suggests that the reforms undertaken by the previous Government did not have a big impact on participation. What that meant was that students were studying fewer of the rigorous subjects such as maths, physics and modern languages.

Tessa Munt: Does the Minister agree that there is a place at least for a percentage of regulated and properly moderated course work in A-level qualifications, so that young people disadvantaged through illness or disruption in other areas of their lives do not have to stake everything on one or two exams at the end of their courses?

Elizabeth Truss: The key point about the reforms we are announcing today is that students will be assessed at the end of their course. As for requirements such as coursework, I expect the Russell Group and other universities involved in the process to advise Ofqual on that.

Bill Esterson: The Secretary of State has criticised bite-sized units, but I have to tell the Minister that the reality is that people learn in bite-sized units and that the world of work is a series of bite-sized activities, so a bite-sized approach is entirely appropriate to the way we learn and to the way qualifications are designed. Is not the reality, then, that removing a modular element is a very retrograde step?

Elizabeth Truss: I do not think that is true. I think modularisation has encouraged a “learn and forget” culture, in which students study something, do the exam and then forget about it, moving on to the next chunk. Many of the subjects that students study at school build on previous elements, so it is an important discipline to be able to understand everything about the subject at the end of the course, rather than forget about something learned earlier. The other issue is the amount of time involved: we are spending a term of time doing exams rather than providing students with extra learning opportunities.

Amber Rudd: Recently, A-level students have had the daunting prospect of aiming not just for As but for A*s. Will the Minister tell us what impact she expects this reform to have on the grade inflation that has been experienced with A-levels and GCSEs?

Elizabeth Truss: By linking A-levels more closely to universities, their entrance requirements and the skills and knowledge they possess, we will see a better control on standards.

Emily Thornberry: Many parents will have got the message that the Secretary of State is largely against assessments and in favour of exams. They may therefore be a little confused about the abolition of AS-levels, and will have to get over that. I was interested to note that in her statement, the Minister accepted that it was important for students to learn more, including about extended writing and research skills, which she saw as important for A-levels. Does the Minister expect there to be more assessments during those two years?

Elizabeth Truss: No, I do not expect that. We are talking about the extended project qualification, going alongside A-levels, but the point about A-levels is that there will be a terminal exam.

Damian Hinds: I welcome these reforms. We know that more universities have had to change their first-year course content or put on extra classes, especially in subjects such as maths. Are not universities best placed to design qualifications at the age of 18, as they will have to deal with the output?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The important point here is that the Russell Group has agreed to be part of this process; it wants to be involved. I think there is an increasing appetite for that among universities across the board. Universities UK has also expressed its interest because universities want to know that the students entering their institutions are well prepared. In certain subjects, academics have been very concerned about the level of preparation. They have quite often found that there is a difference between independent school students who get extra tuition and those currently doing A-levels in state schools.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Minister confirm that an impact assessment has been done on this policy change? If so, what assessment has been made of the effect on children from low-income families and black and minority ethnic communities regarding their education and career choices? Will she clarify whether this is a policy steer or an order?

Elizabeth Truss: As I said earlier, when Curriculum 2000 was introduced, we saw a drop in the number of students from comprehensive schools doing rigorous subjects. [Interruption.] We can see the negative impact of Labour’s policy on participation in the top universities—despite the introduction of organisations such as the Office for Fair Access, which had a dreadful record on social mobility and on students from low-income backgrounds studying certain subjects. In 2004, for example, it abolished the language requirement for GCSE. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I live in hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), will aim for a demeanour of statesmanlike reserve, which I think would suit him well if he could cultivate it.

Harriett Baldwin: There are current alternatives to the A-level: the IB or international baccalaureate and the pre-U, which is being offered by a significantly increasing number of state and private schools. Does that not demonstrate that out there in the marketplace there is diminishing confidence in the A-level as a qualification?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It also indicates increasing competition. We are competing not just with other institutions in this country, but in the global marketplace with organisations and institutions that are developing new ideas and new qualifications all the time. There is also the online world, through which many of those things are going to become available. We need to make sure that our qualifications are keeping up at the highest level. My real fear is that if independent and other schools move towards the pre-U and our A-levels do not keep up, we really will damage social mobility.

Bridget Phillipson: The Minister is proposing a leading role for the Russell Group, but what about all those excellent universities that are not members of it? Why should they receive second-class treatment from this Government in an increasingly two-tier system?

Elizabeth Truss: The Russell Group of universities and others to which I have spoken are all keen to participate in this process. It is a question of organisation. There will be members from all universities right across the university sector on each of the subject panels, making sure that there is a broad base from which to develop these qualifications.

John Howell: I welcome the statement, and I particularly welcome the inspired involvement of the Russell Group. Does my hon. Friend agree that the involvement of that group will give us precisely the qualifications that we are after?

Elizabeth Truss: Absolutely. I think we should be proud that we have some of the best universities in the world, rather than continually damning them as elitist. We want to make sure that more students from all backgrounds are able to access the important material that these universities are providing. That is why we have Cambridge working on a project to expand the
	school curriculum and to give extra material to students so that they have a rich diet on which to feast rather than the paltry diet they have had in previous years.

Luciana Berger: I heard what the Minister said about what she and her Department would do for facilitating subjects, but we already know that arts subjects will be excluded from the Ebacc, which I think will be much to the detriment of the UK’s creative industries in the future. What will the Minister and the Department do for the very important creative subjects?

Elizabeth Truss: Many creative subjects are also facilitating subjects—I would argue that both maths and English are creative subjects—but we are thinking about the other subjects as well, and engaging in further discussions with universities and other organisations about them.

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate the Minister on her strong and passionate delivery of a statement which I think will be broadly welcomed by students, universities and employers. Does she agree that allowing students to take the same exam three or even four times creates a distorted picture of their abilities which does not actually serve anyone?

Elizabeth Truss: I entirely agree. Our proposals have already been strongly supported by businesses as well as universities. The Institute of Directors has been very supportive, and, indeed, expressed its support this morning.

Catherine McKinnell: Life is not just about being able to sit exams; it is also about being able to demonstrate the ability to perform over a sustained period, and that is what employers want. Modular courses help young people to demonstrate such skills. Will the Minister tell us to what extent coursework and modular work feature in the Department’s plans? Will she also tell us on what evidence the proposed changes are based? She has not yet told us that, although she has explained her views on the previous system.

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Lady says that she does not think constant exams should be part of life, but under Labour, constant exams were certainly part of students’ lives. Taking exams is all that they were doing between the ages of 16 and 18.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome the statement. At a recent meeting of the Education Committee to discuss the national curriculum, we heard from various academics that there was a real interest in the upskilling of those who study physics, chemistry and biology before their arrival at university, and that it was important for there to be an academic input in the formation of A-level courses that lead to university. Does the Minister take comfort from that, and does she agree with Professor
	Alison Wolf’s observation—much applauded by the shadow Secretary of State—about the need to recognise that universities need catch-up courses?

Elizabeth Truss: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Another point that Alison Wolf made in her report is that we need more maths students: at present, universities are 200,000 short of the number that they want.
	There are real problems with our current system, which is why we need to reform it. We need a system with which universities and employers are happy, and which provides the important subject knowledge that students need.

John Pugh: I must tell the Minister, with respect, that I thought that the tone of her statement was wrong. It was a tad too aggressive, and unnecessarily so.
	Is there not an anomaly at the heart of the Minister’s plans? She put a great deal of emphasis on the Russell Group. Does she not recognise that it is a self-selecting club and not a statutory body?

Elizabeth Truss: As my hon. Friend may know, there are various university bodies in operation. I have spoken to a lot of them, and also to a lot of vice-chancellors. We need a well-respected and rigorous organisation that will work with the other universities, but we also need an organisation that can hold the ring during the development of our reforms. Otherwise, confusion will be created.

Henry Smith: I commend my hon. Friend’s proposals. They will benefit dyslexic A-level students, who are usually highly intelligent. However, will she assure me that the special arrangements governing, in particular, extra time in terminal examinations will remain?

Elizabeth Truss: I will certainly discuss that with Ofqual.

Robin Walker: I welcome the statement, especially its focus on rigour and the continued investment in science, technology, engineering and maths. Those subjects will be very important to Britain’s employers in the 21st century. Can the Minister reassure us, however, that as well as consulting universities on the reforms, she will consult businesses and the colleges that provide so many of the A-level courses to which she has referred?

Elizabeth Truss: We will certainly consult businesses. However, industries and businesses have made it clear that they respect the judgments of leading universities, because they have the academic expertise to understand what is leading-edge research and what students chiefly need to know. That is why it is so important for universities to lead this process.

Point of Order

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who should have been behind the Chair, has been rescued by a rather timely point of order, although I do not think that it was designed for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman should be behind the Chair. That is where he should be, not playing with his iPad.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement, I criticised the Minister for the aggressive way in which she had introduced and handled her statement. I did so on the basis of a long knowledge of education statements in the House, but following my remarks, two Members suggested that I was being sexist. I was not, Mr. Speaker: not one word of what I said was sexist in any way, and I deeply resent the fact that two Members used their questions to suggest that that was the case.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. Let me simply say that it is not a matter for the Chair. Neither Member said anything disorderly. However, the hon. Gentleman has placed his attempted and, in his view, clear rebuttal on the record. I hope that he will take it in a good spirit when I say that in May this year, all being well, he will celebrate 34 years of uninterrupted service in the House. I am sure that he can bear the burden of those criticisms with stoicism and fortitude. We will leave it there for today.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Voting Age (reduction to 16) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Stephen Williams presented a Bill to allow persons aged 16 years or older to vote as electors at parliamentary and local government elections, and in referendums; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 125).

Energy Efficiency (Houses in Multiple Occupation)

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Energy Act 2011 to enable residents of houses in multiple occupation to benefit from the provisions in the Act designed to increase energy efficiency; and for connected purposes.
	As a press release from the Department of Energy and Climate Change told us in 2010, from 2018 people will be able to become tenants of privately rented homes in the knowledge that their properties have a minimal decent standard of energy efficiency, and it will no longer be possible to let any homes that are on the lowest energy efficiency levels, F and G. An article headed “Huhne gets tough on landlords of draughty homes” included the statement that
	“the government will make it unlawful to rent out”
	a home
	“which has less than an “E”… rating”.
	Indeed, that is what appears, one presumes, in the Energy Act 2011, along with a new right, to be provided by 2016, for tenants to request energy improvements in their homes to be carried out by their landlords, perhaps through the new green deal arguments. It is a welcome step for tenants: action to deal with landlords who let cold homes, the prospect of a saving of as much as £400 a year on energy bills by comparison with the worst-rated properties, and, if tenants opt for it, an earlier right to ensure that the energy efficiency of their homes is improved. However, although welcome, that is only partly true.
	In fact, the 2011 Act states that only tenants of whole houses are eligible to request landlords to improve their homes, and that only landlords of houses in which there is only one tenancy will have a duty to improve properties before letting them. As Members representing constituencies in many parts of the country will recognise, that means that rather a lot of tenants will be left out. They are tenants of houses in multiple occupation—those with homes in properties containing several lettings. Although the number of HMOs varies across the United Kingdom, that potentially applies to some 300,000 of the 3.4 million or so rented homes in the UK. Not all multiply occupied homes are excluded. Houses—student properties, where, typically, unrelated people live under one tenancy—will be covered by the legislation, but hundreds of thousands of other properties will not. Southampton has at least 7,000 houses in multiple occupation, perhaps half of which will be multiply let and therefore excluded from the ambition of getting tough on landlords with draughty homes, as set out under the Energy Act 2011. We will have the same landlords and the same draughty homes, with the new rights and requirements completely passing those tenants by.
	I do not think that is right, not just because tenants in HMOs are more likely than most to be in fuel poverty yet will be paying more in bills than anyone else on this basis after 2018 or because much needed improvements in our housing stock will completely miss an important and known energy-inefficient housing sector, but because the new rights should be in place for all tenants, regardless of the exact nature of their tenancies. My Bill simply seeks to put those rights in place.
	My Bill seeks to amend the 2011 Act in a straightforward way so that its detailed and welcome provisions extend to all tenancies and to all properties that are tenanted. It will mean that a tenant occupying part of a house with have the same right as one occupying a whole house to request those energy improvements. After 2018, the prospective tenant will have the same expectation of a reasonably warm and liveable property when they sign up to rent a floor of a house as when they sign up to rent the whole of a house. The Bill does not put a particular onus on landlords, who should be improving their homes in any case. They will still have available to them the landlord’s energy saving allowance, which is generally unrecognised—I hope it will be taken up more in the future—and which allows them to improve their properties.
	I also do not think the Government should resist the Bill, because it is clear from the record of the proceedings of the Bill that became the 2011 Act that the Minister dealing with it—I see that the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) is in his place again today—clearly believed that the legislation would cover all landlords and all rented properties. It would therefore be relatively easy to put my Bill on the statute books simply by not objecting to it as it proceeds and putting right a serious omission from the 2011 Act. I would have cause to thank the Government were that to happen, but, most important, so would the hundreds of thousands of tenants who would come in from the cold in their properties of the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Dr Alan Whitehead, Joan Walley, Mr John Denham, Martin Horwood, Peter Aldous, Albert Owen, Ian Lavery and Yasmin Qureshi present the Bill.
	Dr Alan Whitehead accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 124).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[15th Allotted Day]

Blacklisting

[Relevant documents: Uncorrected oral evidence taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee, on Blacklisting in Employment, HC 156 (i-x)]

Chuka Umunna: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that in 2009 the Information Commissioner’s Office raided the Consultation Association which revealed a blacklist and files on more than 3,000 individuals which had been used by more than 40 construction companies to vet individuals and deny people employment for reasons including being a member of a trade union or having raised health and safety concerns and that extensive personal information on individuals and their families was held; recognises that the majority of individuals have still not been informed that they were on the blacklist nor given the opportunity to seek redress, despite recent confirmation that blacklisting checks took place on Olympic construction sites and allegations that the practice took place on public projects including Ministry of Defence sites, Portcullis House and Crossrail; further notes that at recent Scottish Affairs Select Committee hearings on blacklisting the Information Commissioner Investigations Manager raised concerns that there may have been collusion by police officers and security services in the compilation of blacklists; and in addition that it was also alleged at the hearings that a blacklist of environmental activists was compiled; and calls on the Government to immediately begin an investigation into the extent to which blacklisting took place and may be taking place, including on public sector projects, and to ensure that appropriate and effective sanctions are in place to tackle and prevent blacklisting.
	The motion relates to a secretive, insidious and shady practice that has brought shame on our construction industry. Those who were responsible for it have yet to be properly held to account for their actions, which is why we have brought this matter to the House today. After seeing huge construction projects successfully delivered safely, on budget and on time by our construction sector—such projects include the Olympic park venues and Heathrow terminal 5—it gives me no pleasure to raise this matter, but debate this matter we must. It would be a dereliction of duty for us not to do so, given what has come to pass. I heard the comments that the Prime Minister made earlier in response to a question about blacklisting that was put to him in Prime Minister’s questions, and I should say that the manner in which he approached the issue is entirely inappropriate. That is because this is not a party political issue, which is why I provided the Secretary of State with an advance copy of my speech in an effort to build consensus; it is an issue of justice.
	Our simple goal with this motion is to help right the wrongs done to people who, dating back to the British industrial revolution, have built and continue to build Britain. They build the airports, the roads and the railways we all use. They build the offices and factories we work in. They build the houses that we live in. Given the hazards of their trade, many of them have lost their lives in so doing over the years. They are our nation’s construction workers. Construction work may be hazardous and not terribly well paid relative to other occupations, but it provides an income to those who do it. It puts food on the plate; it provides a livelihood. But for a long time many of our construction workers have suspected that they were being systematically denied work—work
	that they were more than qualified to do. As a result, lives have been ruined, families have been torn apart and many have been forced out of the industry. Why? How? How on earth did this end up happening?
	It is the usual practice for employers or employment agencies to seek references on potential employees or to otherwise vet them before hiring. Such vetting practices should be, and are on the whole, open, transparent, fair and carried out in compliance with the data protection regime. In the majority of cases such practices would not raise any eyebrows. However, carrying out a blacklist check is quite another matter, and that is what was happening on a grand scale in the construction sector.
	Blacklisting involves checking to see whether a worker is on a blacklist and then discriminating against the individual if they appear on it. It involves systematically compiling information on workers which is then used by employers, or people making recruitment decisions, to discriminate against workers, not because of their ability to do the job, but for other, more sinister, reasons. In this case, the reason was simply that they raised health and safety issues and/or that they were an active trade union member.
	The extent of blacklisting activity in the construction sector was exposed for all to see following a raid in 2009 by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The raid was carried out by the ICO on the offices of a shadowy and secretive organisation called the Consulting Association following a tip-off. Though the raid occurred in 2009, new details on the activities of the Consulting Association are only just coming to light, thanks to the excellent work of, and the ongoing inquiry into blacklisting by, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which has been taking evidence from most of the key protagonists.
	Trade unions, including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—UCATT—Unite and the GMB have also unearthed much evidence, as has the Blacklist Support Group. I am a proud member of the GMB and Unite unions, and I am proud to have UCATT headquartered in my constituency.

Luciana Berger: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I am a proud member of UCATT. Does he agree that the work it has done on behalf on its members—construction workers up and down the country—led to what we saw in 2009 and that if it had not been for the arduous work it has carried out for many decades, we would not be in the situation we are in now? However, we still have a long way to go.

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.
	The Consulting Association was born out of the old Economic League, which had been established in 1919 to promote free enterprise and to fight what its supporters saw as collectivism, socialism and communism—left-wing thinking to which they objected. The league was notorious for blacklisting more than 10,000 people, including Members of this House, trade unionists and journalists. In 1991, it was heavily criticised by the old Select Committee on Employment for dishing out clandestine and inaccurate information suggesting that individuals were unsuitable, leading to many being denied employment.

Caroline Dinenage: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that this should not become a party political point-scoring debate. However, Labour consulted in 2003 on introducing regulations against blacklisting but announced that they would not be doing so because evidence suggested that it had been eradicated in the early 1990s. Can he explain that to me?

Chuka Umunna: It is fair to say that until 2009 hard evidence on the scale we saw unveiled by the Information Commissioner had not come to light. I accept that different Governments of different hues should perhaps have done more since the Consulting Association was set up in 1993, but I am not really interested in attributing blame. I am interested in ensuring that we right the wrongs and that should be our focus.

Bill Esterson: I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents who have raised the issue with me. Some were on the blacklist held by the Consulting Association and others fear they might have been or are concerned for other people. Mick Chalmers raised the issue with me because of his concern for others, for example. Does my hon. Friend think that the investigation needs to go further than the 3,000 people named on the blacklist? Many other people have suggested that that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Chuka Umunna: I agree with my hon. Friend and will expand on that further.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend is right not to seek to apportion blame. I know that there were other distractions this morning, so I do not know whether he heard the interview with the Information Commissioner and the astonishing complacency with which he failed to address the fact that progress has been so slow in identifying even the 3,000, let alone others who might have been subject to blacklisting.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Overall, although the Information Commissioner has done good work in this area his office needs to be far more proactive in its approach to the overall issue.
	The Economic League was wound up in 1993 and its construction company members wanted to continue its activities in their sector, so the Consulting Association was set up. It spun off out of the league in 1993 and a former regional organiser of the league, Mr Ian Kerr, became its chief officer until it was wound up in 2009. Mr Kerr, through the association, ran a large-scale secret operation on behalf of the construction companies, which were all leading companies in the sector. Many of the construction companies have since sought to distance themselves from the association’s activities by claiming, for example, that its services were used by subsidiaries they did not own at the time. Some have simply maintained that none of their managers knew the practice was going on, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Let me be clear: these well-known construction companies were involved in some way, shape or form with the association and therefore with its practices and no amount of carefully worded legal statements, denials or excuses can hide that fact.

Eilidh Whiteford: Blacklisting is by its nature a hidden and clandestine practice and the hon. Gentleman is making very important points about the construction sector. Does he think that there are other sectors in which the practices are as widespread?

Chuka Umunna: There have been such allegations, to which I shall turn shortly.

Jack Dromey: I was involved 22 years ago in the exposure of the activities of the Economic League, including working with The Guardian. When the Economic League was wound up, assurances were given by the construction employers that they would never again engage in blacklisting, yet we know that that scandalous practice continued. Thousands of building workers who wanted a job, were qualified for a job and who were desperate for a job could not get a job and spent years out of work. Is it not time that the construction companies were put in the dock for their shameful continuation of the shameful practice of blacklisting?

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
	Mr Kerr, who has since passed away, gave extensive evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs last November. In his evidence, he could not have been clearer about the involvement of the companies my hon. Friend mentioned.

Jim Cunningham: It is not just the construction industry. In the manufacturing industry, we used to come across such cases. When I was a shop steward, some years ago now, an organisation called Aims of Industry was very active. I am glad we are having this debate, because it was shameful that a lot of people were condemned not to work again. We talk about equality and everything that goes with that, so surely that should be utterly condemned.

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree. Such practices are totally shameful.
	Mr Kerr disclosed that after he was prosecuted and fined £5,000 for breach of the data protection regime in respect of the activities of the Consulting Association, Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd paid the fine. Why did it do this? Not because David Cochrane, its head of human resources, was the chairman of the Consulting Association when it was shut down, although he was. No, the fine was paid by Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd because, as Mr Kerr told the Select Committee in November,
	“I had put myself at the front and took the flak…so that they wouldn’t be drawn into all of this. They would remain hidden”.
	Those involved cannot hide from the House today.

Jim McGovern: I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee and we took evidence yesterday from Cullum McAlpine, of Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd. Mr Kerr’s widow put it to us that there was an instruction from David Cochrane that the money paid to Mr Kerr should be put into his daughter’s bank accounts so that it could be hidden.

Chuka Umunna: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and all the other members of the Committee for the fantastic work they have done on this issue. I was going to come
	to that exact point, as the fine that was paid was essentially, in some respects, hush money. That is how I would describe it. According to the Information Commissioner, 44 construction companies made up the hall of shame that was the membership of the Consulting Association at the time of the 2009 raid I mentioned, including: five companies in the AMEC group; Amey Construction Ltd; six Balfour Beatty companies; BAM Construction Ltd; Carillion plc; Kier Ltd; Laing O’Rourke Services Ltd; Morgan Est and Morgan Ashurst, which are now known as Morgan Sindall; Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, which I have already mentioned; Skanska UK plc; Taylor Woodrow Construction; and Vinci plc. Those are just a few of the companies listed. In fact, half of the 20 largest construction companies today and/or their subsidiaries were involved with the Consulting Association in 2009. They were charged a £3,000 annual fee for membership and then had to pay £2.20 for each blacklist check on a construction worker, which would be a drop in the ocean for them but would have severe consequences for the workers affected.

Julie Elliott: The companies my hon. Friend named are some of the biggest in the workplace today. Is it not a disgrace that the people they were blacklisting were often those who were drawing attention to problems and health and safety issues in the workplace? That should have benefited those companies, but instead they wiped away the concerns and said that there was not a problem. The problem is not just blacklisting but what they were trying to hide in their places of employment.

Chuka Umunna: Absolutely. What I find so reprehensible about this is that a person could be blacklisted simply for raising a rational, legitimate health and safety concern.

Joan Walley: This is an absolutely appalling situation, and the cover-up has been going on for a long time. The companies concerned must know what has been happening. The 22 companies to which my hon. Friend referred operate in constituencies all around the UK. Is it not important that they come clean, and show how they have been covering up attempts by trade unionists to ensure health and safety at work, so as to avoid accidents? It is just appalling.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is quite right. There has been a culture of denial; people are sticking their head in the sand, but the public and people working in the industry deserve some honesty.

Charlie Elphicke: I think that all of us would agree that blacklisting is entirely unacceptable. The previous Labour Government consulted on the issue back in 2003, but no action was taken until 2010. Why? Why was the practice not stopped?

Chuka Umunna: I say this to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have enjoyed debating since we both joined the House two and a half years ago: I have already stated that different Governments perhaps should have done more about the issue. I cannot say fairer than that. If people want to make political points about what the last Labour Government did, fine, but I am not sure where that will get us.

John McDonnell: I think I was the one who raised the question in 2003. Many of us who were extremely frustrated and angry spoke on the Floor of the House about the regulations not being enacted, though they were brought forward and consulted on. The problem was this: the TUC sent a circular to every union, and it circulated in branches, too, but it was almost as though there was a rule of omertà within the industry; there was absolute silence and cover-up, right the way across that period. It was extremely difficult to get the evidence. Only when the Information Commissioner carried out the raid was hard evidence available.

Chuka Umunna: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I have read the Hansard report of his exchanges with the Labour Minister at the time.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about not just those whose names appeared on the blacklist, but the many tens of thousands of people to whom it was made clear that if they raised issues such as health and safety, they might well appear on these lists? That was used to make sure that a lot of people did not raise perfectly reasonable issues.

Chuka Umunna: That is right. Certainly, the anecdotal evidence that I have received absolutely confirms what my hon. Friend says. One of the problems is that there is what happens on the site and what happens in the boardroom. I have not come across a board director of any of the construction companies who would publicly or privately condone these practices, but these practices have been going on. One either acknowledges that and seeks to deal with them, or puts one’s head in the sand. It is the head-in-the-sand attitude that has been so unhelpful thus far.

Charlie Elphicke: As I said, I think we all agree that blacklisting is unacceptable, and was wrong. He mentions that the Information Commissioner took action in 2009. The regulations came into effect in 2010. The question, to my mind, is what can we as lawmakers do further, practically, in terms of the legal structure, sanctions and penalties?

Chuka Umunna: I will come to that exact point in a bit. I shall explain how the association worked, for the record.
	Mr Kerr maintained a list and files on at least 3,200 construction workers. Association members would feed him the names of workers, and information relating to them, to keep on file. It would be remiss of me not to mention that, regrettably—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) may just have alluded to this—there are allegations that there were some cases of trade union officials assisting in this process. The material included personal information, including on workers’ private relationships, whether they had raised health and safety issues, and their trade union activities. The copies of the files that I have seen give details of people’s specific movements on particular times and dates.
	Before they recruited workers, association members would check with Mr Kerr whether the said worker was on the list, and if they were, they would be taken against, and were, more often than not, denied employment.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) said at the Select Committee’s cross examination of Mr Kerr, for £2.20, the association could dictate whether a worker got a job and so whether they could
	“put a meal on the table that week.”

David Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this subject to the House, and congratulate the Scottish Affairs Committee on progressing a scheme relating to blacklisting. I hope that we take up the argument that it is not just individuals such as me who were blacklisted; it was also the families. My wife could not get a job until she took my mother’s address. I was unemployed for two and a half years. It is not just the individuals who were blacklisted, but their families.

Chuka Umunna: Absolutely. I can only express regret at the fact that my hon. Friend and his family had to go through that.

Kris Hopkins: I am listening to the shock and horror being expressed by the Opposition, and some individual and personal cases have been described, so why did Labour not enact the regulations until March 2010? Given that all this intelligence was known, why did it leave it until the last 60 days of a 13-year Government to enact them?

Chuka Umunna: The hon. Gentleman totally misjudges the tone of the debate. If he had listened to what I said, he would have heard that the Consulting Association started its work in 1993, so two Governments could have, and perhaps should have, done more on the issue; I have said that three or four times. He does not add much with his intervention.

Rosie Cooper: I am listening to political points being scored. I have to remind everybody that there are people and families at the heart of this. Those families deserve justice. They have been caught up in a terrible injustice that they have not been able to deal with. A constituent of mine was involved in the construction industry in the 1970s and ’80s. He was heavily involved in the union, and did not work for four years. His family suffered. We need to know how far and deep this disgraceful practice went. It deprived people of their livelihoods, and deprived their families incredibly. They suffered; should we now just score political points and walk away? I do not think so.

Chuka Umunna: I hope that the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) will reflect on those comments.
	Let me give an example. An ex-scaffolder and father of four from Wigan on whom the association held information was, like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), unable to get work for several years. He said:
	“this nearly ruined my marriage and it meant that my children were on free meals at school.”
	Hon. Members who mentioned the impact on families were absolutely correct to do so.
	Consulting Association invoices show that between 2006 and 2009, the construction companies involved paid just under £500,000 for blacklist checks and information. Given the amounts involved, it is inconceivable
	that the companies’ use and membership of the association would not have been known about and sanctioned at a senior level, yet so far, not one of the companies mentioned has apologised for its membership and use of the Consulting Association. That is an utter disgrace, given all that has come to light. The workers involved deserve an apology, and the companies involved should stop prevaricating and issue an apology now.
	For the record, I should mention that when Mr Kerr gave evidence to the Committee, he confirmed the existence—this responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—of a separate blacklist containing records on as many as 200 environmental activists, raising the possibility that there existed further, as yet unknown, blacklists relating to other sectors or groups that were being monitored.

Jim McGovern: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—he has been very generous in taking interventions. It was not only construction workers—in fact, not only workers—who found themselves on the blacklist. Mr Syd Scroggie from Dundee—a disabled war veteran who lost a leg and the sight in both eyes while serving this country—found himself on the blacklist. Why? Because he sent a letter to the local press commending them for awarding Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city.

Chuka Umunna: That is deeply shocking, and quite extraordinary. I thank my hon. Friend for adding that to the debate.
	Unfortunately, in the past few months we have learned that blacklisting checks were carried out on workers who were to be engaged on publicly funded projects. In November, Mr Kerr submitted evidence to the Select Committee in which he stated that member companies used the association’s services to check potential employees applying to work on major public sector contracts. He said that the projects ranged from airport runways to buildings such as Portcullis House on the parliamentary estate, the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall, GCHQ, the Jubilee line, the millennium dome, private finance initiative projects, hospitals, schools, Olympic sites, roads, rail contracts and so on. That is corroborated by an admission last month by Balfour Beatty in a letter to the Olympic Delivery Authority. Without the knowledge of the ODA, Balfour Beatty admitted that it had used the services of the association in 2008 to check 12 prospective Olympic workers who, thankfully, went on to be employed. It was also corroborated yesterday by Cullum McAlpine, who is a director of Sir Robert McAlpine Enterprises Ltd, and was the chair of the association from 1993 to 1996, and confirmed to the Select Committee that Consulting Association services were used on a large number of public projects, again including the Olympics and the Jubilee line.

Stephen Doughty: Given the scale and scope of this disgraceful practice, does that not underline the urgent need to get to the bottom of this and take action to tackle it? We are going to invest in huge national infrastructure projects, whether in the energy sector or more widely, and we must never let this happen again.

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree.
	There has been concern that blacklisting may have taken place on Crossrail after it was revealed that a former senior human resources manager employed by a contractor on that project, Ron Barron, was a regular user and contributor to the association’s services in a previous job. An employment tribunal found that he introduced the use of the blacklist at his former employer, the construction firm, CB and I, and checked names with the association more than 900 times in 2007 alone. He was engaged as a consultant before the decision of the employment tribunal case against his previous employer was published, and the contractor says that it was not aware of the case.
	In addition, the Select Committee has heard that there was information on association files regarding the monitoring of workers by the authorities because they were Irish nationals, and it has been suggested that they were barred from working on Ministry of Defence sites for that reason. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on all those topics. The answers that I have received indicate that there has been no recent discussion, correspondence or investigation of blacklists being used by construction companies engaged on public sector projects. That may have changed since I received those answers. I do not believe any of the Ministers answering my questions were seeking to be unhelpful in providing those answers, but given what I have just set out and what we now know, there is sufficient evidence to justify the Government carrying out a full investigation into the extent of blacklisting that took place, and which may still be taking place, at the very least on public sector projects.
	After carrying out an investigation, the Government should set out what practical steps may be needed to stop blacklisting, and to prevent blacklisting checks on public projects in future. No doubt, they will want to consider and reflect on whatever findings the Select Committee makes when it reports. We can have a discussion as to what form that investigation will take, but we need to learn the full truth of what went on. Beyond blacklist checks being made on workers on public sector projects, David Clancy, the Information Commissioner’s investigations manager, who carried out the raid in 2009 on the association, has made very, very serious allegations in relation to the police and security services. Giving evidence to the Select Committee, Mr Clancy, a former police officer, said he believed that some of the information held by the association would have come from the police or security services, based on the nature of the information held. For example, an in-depth analysis of an individual’s home circumstances and what his neighbours thought about him featured on one file.
	Mr Kerr denied that the association had any involvement with the police or authorities. However, he confirmed that the Economic League, some of whose records formed the bank of information held by the association, had met and exchanged information with the police. At the very least, it is likely that some of the information given to the league by the police made its way on to the files held by the association. Having seen examples of some of the records myself, it is clear that they contained information based on the surveillance of individuals, including periods away from construction sites. It seems improbable that such information came exclusively from
	construction firms themselves. That further underlines the need for a full Government investigation into blacklisting, which should consider the role of the police and other such authorities.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend is making a strong case. On his last point, even if the Government do not agree with anything else that has been said today, we have heard so much in the past few weeks about the role of the police over the past four decades—and the real worry is that faith in the police has been undermined by what took place two or three decades ago—that they must agree to investigate the cases raised today.

Chuka Umunna: I absolutely agree. This is particularly serious and shocking, and if the police are to command the confidence of people in this country, the questions that hang over them in respect of their involvement with blacklisting must be properly investigated.
	What about legal protections for construction workers and the system of redress for victims? Although it was and remains the case that it is unlawful to refuse employment on the grounds of trade union membership alone, at the time of the Information Commissioner’s raid on the Consultancy Association in 2009, there was no specific general prohibition on blacklisting. It was therefore left to the commissioner to prosecute Mr Kerr for failing to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. As I said, he was fined just £5,000 as a result, which seems a shockingly small amount, given the devastation caused over the years. We have heard the evidence in the House this afternoon. Following the raid and the emergence of the blacklist, the Labour Government consulted on the issue of increasing the maximum monetary fine that could be imposed for serious breaches of data protection principles from £5,000 to £500,000. The increase came too late for the Kerr case.
	Perhaps more shocking still is the fact that those firms that set up the association and became members—which supplied information to and accessed the blacklist—were neither charged with any offence like Mr Kerr nor ordered to pay compensation to the workers involved under that or any other law. To date, as I said, not one director of those companies has been brought to book for what happened. We also introduced the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 a few months after the raid. They provide for victims of blacklists to seek redress from employment tribunals and civil courts only. They do not contain criminal sanctions, but they make it unlawful to compile, supply, sell or use a “prohibited list”'. To be prohibited, the list must contain details of current or former trade union members, or details of people who are taking part, or who have in the past taken part, in trade union activities. Non-trade union members on a list that includes trade union members qualify for protection too. The list must be compiled with a view to its being used by employers or employment agencies for the purpose of discriminating when recruiting or during employment.
	As cases have progressed through the courts it has become apparent that the regulations need to be strengthened. I am coming on to the point that the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) made. First,
	the regulations are not retrospective in effect. While they act as a strong deterrent to those considering using blacklists, many of the victims of the blacklisting in the past, whom I have described—and some hon. Members have been victims—are unable to make use of them to secure compensation. Given that this is the case, what more can be done to ensure that those who have been wronged have some form of redress or compensation?
	Secondly, it is unclear to what extent those who are not employed, in the strict sense of that word, but are self-employed, may bring claims under these regulations where they have been refused work. We know that false self-employment in the construction sector is rampant, so this is an important point that needs to be cleared up.
	Thirdly, claims can be brought in the employment tribunal or the county court. Though the cap on compensation in the tribunal is £72,300 and there is no cap in the county court, people often prefer—I know this from my previous practice as an employment lawyer—to claim in the employment tribunal because it can be less laborious for claimants and the cost consequences of losing a case are less severe. However, claims brought in the tribunal must be brought within three months of the alleged unlawful act. Claims brought after that time can be allowed only at the discretion of the tribunal. Again, that needs to be looked at, because so many of the people affected are not even aware that these unlawful acts took place.
	The upshot of all this is that often the only legal remedy for a significant number of victims of blacklisting is through a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of a breach of their convention rights—article 8 on privacy and article 11 on freedom of information. That, of course, can take a long time and a great deal of resource. There are a number of cases going through the courts at present, which I will not refer to now as I do not wish to prejudice those trials, but we must be realistic about asking individual workers, many of whom have lost their livelihoods and so do not have huge resources, to enforce their rights against those very well resourced companies.
	For these reasons I ask the Secretary of State, who I am pleased is here today, to carry out a review of the law in this area to see how it might be tightened up and protections and sanctions strengthened, and for him to report back to the House on his findings. I have deliberately not set out detail in respect of legal changes that may be needed to address these technical issues. That is something on which we can work together to achieve consensus. However, just as we correctly argue for robust legislation to protect whistleblowers, we must ensure that a climate of fear is not allowed to continue around the issue of blacklisting.
	No worker on any building site or at other workplaces throughout the land should hesitate before reporting an unsafe site or a dangerous working practice. That means that they must have confidence that the law is with them—is firmly on their side—and that there will be no question of that report being noted down somewhere in a file for troublemakers, allowing firms such as the construction companies to get away with what they have been doing.
	Finally, I turn to the work of the Information Commissioner.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chuka Umunna: I shall make progress, as I am aware that many colleagues want to get in.
	Although I welcome the fact that the Information Commissioner has taken steps to work alongside trade unions by sending a list of names and dates of birth of blacklisted workers to four trade unions to check the names against their membership lists and to help alert their members that they have been affected, it is crucial that the ICO puts in place a proactive process, as I said earlier, so that those who have been blacklisted can be informed and can seek redress. This is particularly the case in respect of those affected who are not members of any trade union.
	The ICO still has questions to answer on its approach to blacklisting and the way in which the 2009 raid was conducted. Why, for example, were just 5% to 10% of documents on the site recovered? Why was the raid not followed up by searches, with the necessary warrants, of the construction firms that supplied the bulk of Mr Kerr’s information? For the sake of the victims of blacklisting, I hope the ICO will be able to resolve these concerns.
	In conclusion, what happened is nothing short of a national scandal. The sadness is that we cannot say with confidence that these practices are not still continuing. That is why action is needed. This action may take some weeks or months, but the time for denials and hiding their heads in the sand by the construction companies involved is over, not least because unless they apologise and accept responsibility, the reputation of the entire industry will be tarnished. That is not at all fair to those companies in the sector who have not engaged in those practices.
	With that in mind, I end by asking the construction companies involved to consider setting up a fund into which they could all pay and which could immediately begin to compensate those workers who were blacklisted for the immense loss they have suffered. That, in addition to a full apology, would be a good place to start in righting the wrongs which have been done to our construction workers over the years. I commend the motion to the House.

Vincent Cable: In trying to reflect the spirit in which the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) introduced the debate, let me begin by saying that we would all agree that blacklisting is a thoroughly objectionable and indefensible practice. He is right to focus attention in particular on the construction industry. We all know that that industry is not only important but dangerous, and the health and safety issues in that sector are extremely important.
	The reason that the hon. Gentleman has brought the debate is to seek an investigation—an inquiry. I have been listening very carefully and I shall try to be constructive. What I am not clear about, even after listening to him for half an hour, is whether we are talking about the word “was” or the word “is”. He spoke about “may be”. That is rather an important distinction.
	Are we being asked to reopen an investigation that has already been held and legislation that has already been passed under the previous Government? I am not trying to be partisan; it happened. Are we being asked to revisit history—frankly, I am sceptical about the value of that—or are we talking about something that is
	actually going on? If it is actually going on, it is a serious matter and it needs investigation. I, of course, will want to see it properly investigated, but we want some evidence.
	The hon. Gentleman made a speech today and there has been a battery of articles in the newspapers—a big page in The Times this morning—alleging that these things are happening. Well, bring it here. I will investigate it if there is any evidence that we can investigate. Let us be clear. Are we talking about now, or are we talking about an investigation into history?

Chuka Umunna: I believe that what happened in the past needs to be investigated because we know and we have the evidence only now that it happened in the past. I have just explained and taken the Secretary of State in detail through the latest evidence, in particular that given to the Scottish Affairs Committee. Given that this practice happened in the past, it is right that we investigate how it came to happen. Why did Government Departments not know that it was going on? What questions were being asked? What do we need to learn from that?
	In respect of the here and now, allegations have been made—I was very careful about the language that I used—to suggest that that is still ongoing. That also needs to be investigated.

Vincent Cable: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that those are quite different things. If we are reopening the past, that is a different kind of inquiry conducted by different people in a different time frame. I need to be clear about what we are being asked to do.

Steve Rotheram: On the point that the Secretary of State just made, would it not be fantastic if everybody accused of wrongdoing did the police’s job and brought the evidence to the likes of the Secretary of State? The right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State. He can order the inquiry and he should do so.

Vincent Cable: As I just said, if I can see any evidence that, under our Government—I have responsibility in this area—wrongdoing is taking place, or even evidence that suggests that it is taking place, I am very happy to investigate it. Nobody has yet come forward. As regards the past, one of the features that was not referred to earlier is the fact that the previous Government made it absolutely clear that the penalties and redress were not retrospective. That is what the previous Government determined. They could have applied fines retrospectively; they did not. They drew a line under history in 2010. That was their decision and that is what I inherited.

Chuka Umunna: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. In relation to what has happened and whether he should investigate matters that occurred in the past under previous Governments, his Government have announced the results of inquiries and set up inquiries across a range of Departments into what happened under previous Governments. That should not preclude an investigation now in respect of things that happened in the past.
	On what is happening now, oral evidence has been given to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee outlining things that have happened. I am not talking about
	scurrilous press reports; I am talking about hard evidence—witness evidence—that has been given to the Select Committee.

Vincent Cable: Let me just try to draw a line under this part of the argument. I am trying to be helpful; I do not see any particular value in having a party political barney over this. If there is evidence forthcoming about current practice, of course we want to have it investigated, and I will investigate it. For that reason, I am not going to recommend to my colleagues that they vote against the motion. It might well be true that there are issues here, and I do not want to close the door on the matter if there is evidence out there that needs investigating.
	That is one set of issues, but there is a completely different perspective as far as the past is concerned. I will go over what happened in the past in a moment, but that is a different question. My responsibilities lie, as part of this Government, in dealing with things that might have happened over the past two and a half years. If things are happening, of course we must get to the bottom of it.

Charlie Elphicke: The question that forms in my mind is: have there been further cases of blacklisting since the regulations came into force? We have parliamentary privilege that we can use in the Chamber, and it is important that we should hear examples of blacklisting that have occurred since the regulations came into force, rather than simply holding an inquiry for the sake of holding an inquiry.

Vincent Cable: That is, in a sense, what I was trying to say.

Chuka Umunna: rose—

Vincent Cable: Let me just answer this point.
	I do not see the value of a fishing expedition. We need evidence that something is happening in order to investigate it.

Chuka Umunna: rose—

Vincent Cable: Let me just proceed a little more.
	I should like to move on from that point and to ask, out of genuine curiosity, about the way in which this issue has surfaced in the form of an Opposition day debate. The Prime Minister was totally right to point out as a matter of fact that these things had happened before 2010, and I do not quite understand why that has caused such offence. Many of the issues that have been raised here relate to the conduct and behaviour of the Information Commissioner. As the hon. Member for Streatham and his colleagues know, those in the Information Commissioner’s Office are not Government officials responsible to Ministers; they are responsible to the House. The Information Commissioner is a different kind of animal from a Government Department. Many of the allegations relate to the courts, and to civil and criminal practice, for which we cannot take responsibility.

Cathy Jamieson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: May I just finish this argument?
	I am genuinely baffled by the way in which the hon. Member for Streatham and his colleagues have approached this matter. He could have come and talked to me about this subject at any time. He knows perfectly well that I hold regular meetings in my office with his own colleagues on a Monday evening, and if they have individual cases that they are worried about, particularly confidential cases that they do not want to discuss elsewhere, we can discuss them. I am very happy to discuss them. Nobody has come to me on this issue in the past two and a half years, however.
	I regularly meet the general secretary of the TUC. He—now she—is a valued stakeholder, and I talk to her on the same basis that I talk to the CBI. We have regular meetings, and at no stage in those meetings has anybody ever asked to discuss the issue of blacklisting. I meet national officers of the GMB, of Unite and of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, and occasionally their general secretaries, and none of them has ever raised the issue of blacklisting. So why has the subject suddenly surfaced in an Opposition day debate? It is difficult to get my head round what is going on here.

John McDonnell: I want justice to come out of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman will know—he can look at the Hansard record—that I have been raising this issue for more than a decade. On the point about past issues, things changed when the evidence exposed the potential of police or security services involvement. I raised that with the Prime Minister on 21 March 2012, and asked for an investigation. That was at the time when he was setting up the Leveson inquiry, and I felt that this matter was on a par with that. The response that I got from him was, to be frank, truculent. He suggested that the police should investigate police involvement in blacklisting. There is a qualitative difference now that we have the information from the Select Committee, particularly about the past involvement of the police and the security services.

Vincent Cable: I have read in the paper—and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has now said—that there is an issue affecting the police force and the security services, but has he, or the Opposition spokesman or anyone else, referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission? Has it been referred to the security services Investigatory Powers Tribunal? It might be that such referrals did not lead anywhere and that we need to look at doing something else, but were they made in the first place?

Chuka Umunna: I am genuinely flabbergasted by the Secretary of State’s response. He asks why we have raised these issues now, in an Opposition day debate. It is because of all the evidence that has come out of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I can tell him that we have seen other evidence as well, from outside the Select Committee, including the exchange of letters between the Olympic Delivery Authority and Balfour Beatty, not to mention some of the stuff relating to Crossrail. That is why we are having the debate now.
	In respect of the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the courts and the tribunals, I am not asking him to impose his view of what the judgment should be in a
	particular case. We know, however, that one problem with the regulations is that employment tribunals have failed because, if someone was employed as a contractor on a project, without a direct employee-employer relationship, and they have been blacklisted, the regulations are no use to them. That is why I am saying that we need to review the law and to strengthen it.

Vincent Cable: I should like to move on, but I shall just make the point that if those practices are continuing, it would be an extremely serious matter. It would need investigating and we might well need legislative change because the previous regulations were not strong enough. That might well be the case. I am just asking Opposition Members, particularly those on the Front Bench, to co-operate with me, because I am very happy to take this matter forward if there is an issue to investigate.
	As far as the past is concerned, I will certainly look at all the evidence that has come out of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and we will see whether it needs to be dealt with in a different way, because it is a matter of history. I am primarily concerned, however, with the implication that this is still going on. Of course, if it is still going on, it needs to be investigated and stopped. That is the essence of the problem.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Vincent Cable: I have taken a lot of interventions. I want to make a little progress, then perhaps I will take some more.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. A lot of Members want to speak, and the more time that is taken up with interventions, the less time will be available for their speeches. I do not mind which happens, but Members must choose. The Secretary of State has said that he will not give way for a while, and I know that some Members who want to catch my eye are getting frustrated.

Vincent Cable: I should like to go through the issues that have been raised step by step. Most of them relate to the past. I want to start by describing factually the matters covered by the 2008-09 Information Commissioner’s investigation. He used his powers under the Data Protection Act 1998 to launch an investigation, based on a story in The Guardian newspaper that an intelligence system had been used to vet workers for employment in the UK construction industry. As a result of that, a search warrant was issued in 2008, leading to a search of the premises of the Consulting Association in February 2009. The investigation resulted in the successful prosecution of the Consulting Association for breaching data protection law and it was closed down. The owner, Mr Kerr—now, I think, deceased—was fined £5,000, which was the maximum fine at the time. The levels of fines have now been radically changed. Fifteen enforcement notices were issued against the Consulting Association and some of its user construction companies to stop them collecting and using personal data for vetting purposes.
	The investigation looked further, but came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that blacklisting existed in other industries, or that the number of construction workers blacklisted went beyond those in the files secured by the Information Commissioner. In other words, it addressed the question that Members are now trying to raise in their interventions. It is
	important to reflect that that wholly independent body asked the questions that are now being asked, and that it came to that very clear conclusion.

Tom Clarke: I realise that the Secretary of State is attempting to be fair—[Interruption.] I will not divide the House on that, but it seems that way to me—I treat former Labour councillors from Glasgow with the utmost respect. My point is that evidence of blacklisting from that time has only recently come out. People did not know about it or hear about it, so what reaction can they give? I understand that during one of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s hearings a witness revealed that my name was on the list and that I had been described as a communist—me, a former altar boy! How will the Secretary of State deal with information that only emerges today but relates to the past?

Vincent Cable: I, too, have been called a communist, including since this Government came into office, but I am not demanding an official investigation.
	Then there is the question of the ICO’s handling of blacklisted individuals. As I understand it, the ICO—it is a fully independent body, not a Government agency—is trying to contact the individuals on the Consulting Association’s blacklist and help them with the long-term consequences. I repeat—this point seemed to get a little lost earlier—the ICO is a fully independent regulatory body, so we cannot pursue individual cases. I understand that there are some genuine practical problems. For example, some of the names cannot be deciphered and addresses are not available in some cases. However, my understanding is that the ICO is doing its best to trace every individual concerned and to assist them.

David Hamilton: No doubt I was on the list because I was a communist at the time—[Interruption.] Those were the good old days. The Secretary of State indicated that he will not push this motion to a vote and that he was not for an inquiry. May I make the observation? All of us in the Chamber realised that phone hacking was taking place, but none of us could prove it, and we could not prove it until an investigation was initiated. That is the heart of the problem. Will he give an assurance that he will investigate and follow the investigation, even if it does go back a way, because I am sure that when he starts investigating what happens, there will be a history that goes right back? Will he take that investigation all the way back?

Vincent Cable: The difference with the phone hacking scandal, of course, is that it has only just come to attention and been demonstrated, and there has now been an investigation into it. The ICO inquiry was an investigation into the things about which we are now complaining, and as far as I can establish it was a thorough and comprehensive inquiry.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way on that specific point. It is important that the debate in this House sends the clearest possible message of support to the Information Commissioner in the further enquiries he intends to make on this. The analogy my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) makes with phone hacking is absolutely right. For months—years,
	in fact—the defence that phone hacking was the action of one rogue reporter kept proper investigation at bay. I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that the evidence that has been provided, even in the short time so far, is sufficient to justify further investigation, even if only to send the clearest possible signal to the construction industry that blacklisting was, is and will be wholly and utterly unacceptable.

Vincent Cable: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We will have to have very short interventions if Members also wish to catch my eye.

Vincent Cable: Of course blacklisting is wholly and utterly unacceptable, and of course the industry needs to understand that—I think that was the first remark I made. If it is about sending signals, we have already done so, and of course we will have a close look at what the Scottish Affairs Committee has said and whether it has found any new evidence. I do not think that this debate has brought forward anything new, but perhaps the Select Committee has. Obviously, if there is fundamental new information, logically we will look at that, but we have not yet seen it.
	Then there is the question of the existing legislative framework, to which the hon. Member for Streatham drew attention. Let me just go over the legislative framework. The Data Protection Act 1998 was the basis on which the investigation took place, and the Information Commissioner used the maximum legal powers available at the time, which have since been increased, hence the ability to use civil penalties of £500,000. There is also the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes it unlawful to employ a person because they are a member—or, indeed, not a member—of a trade union or because they refuse to join or leave a trade union. It is equally unlawful for an agency to refuse employment services on those grounds. As we have heard, an individual can bring an employment tribunal complaint within three months of an offence taking place, or longer if it was not reasonably practical to bring the claim in time. That is what many workers have done in this case. Finally, there is the legislation that the previous Government introduced, the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, under which it became unlawful to use, compile, sell or supply blacklists of trade union members or activities for discriminatory purposes such as employment vetting.
	There was a decade of review of the 1999 Act and its implications. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), have asked why action was not taken more quickly. Let me go through the history of that decade. The Employment Relations Act 1999 introduced the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to outlaw the creation, use, sale or supply of blacklists, but no regulations were introduced in 1999. Four years later, in 2003, the Government carried out a public review of the effect of the Act and concluded that there was no evidence of blacklisting, but they did publish draft blacklisting regulations and said that they would introduce them swiftly if the need arose. The ICO then investigated the Consulting Association, after which the Government introduced the regulations that had been published in draft.
	Therefore, there was a very long process of consultation. Preparatory legislation was produced in case there was evidence that something had taken place, and indeed there was and the Government acted. My approach is exactly the same. If companies have found a way around the regulations and abuses are still taking place, we of course need to look at taking fresh steps, but I am waiting to hear that evidence.

David Anderson: Will the Secretary of State address the point I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) about the involvement of the police and security services? The ICO’s investigations manager has stated in evidence:
	“I believe some of the information would have come from those types of sources.”
	Surely there is a public interest, and an interest in this House, in what public servants of Crown were doing in feeding information to private companies.

Vincent Cable: That is an allegation and, as I said a few moments ago, if there is serious substance to it and a good basis for investigation, it should first have gone to the Police Complaints Authority and to the body that looks at the security services. There is a process. It might be tedious to go through it, but that is what we have to do. If those avenues have been exhausted, perhaps we can take it to the next stage, but I have no evidence that they have even been tried.
	The next question was whether we should now be investigating construction companies working on public contracts. That is the issue for today. As I have said many times, I am open to new evidence if it is available, because it is very clear that any company working on a public contract must comply with the law. Of course companies should not break data protection law, trade union law or the blacklist regulations.

Michael Meacher: The Secretary of State keeps returning to the point that there needs to be evidence of blacklisting after 2010. How does he respond to the statement made only last week by Balfour Beatty that it used blacklisting when taking on workers for the construction of the Olympic venues?

Vincent Cable: I am coming to the Balfour Beatty point, which I think related to events four or five years ago; I am happy to be corrected, but that is my understanding. Let me say what I think happened in that case. We knew that Balfour Beatty wrote to the Olympic Delivery Authority admitting that one company in its group made checks on 12 potential employees prior to February 2009. That was in response to a letter from the ODA, one of a number sent to high-profile contractors. The firm insists that all 12 people were given jobs and that there was no wider or further use of pre-employment checks. The ODA has taken a very clear and unambiguous stand condemning blacklisting in the operation of the Olympics. There is no question but that the practice was taking place well back during the last Government.
	I have already responded to allegations of collusion by the police and security services. There is then the question of remedies; people have clearly been damaged, and evidence has been advanced. Let us review the redress. Those excluded from employment can seek
	redress in the county courts or the Court of Session in Scotland and other rights under the regulations can be enforced in employment tribunals.
	I repeat the point I made in response to an intervention: the last Government took the view that legislation should not apply retrospectively and prior to 2010. I suspect that a lot of the frustration and anger of people who have been hurt by what happened relates to the decision not to apply the measures retrospectively.

Caroline Dinenage: The Secretary of State is being generous in taking interventions. Does he think in retrospect that it was a mistake not to make the legislation retrospective, given the evidence that we have heard, particularly from the Opposition, about the real human impact? Thousands of families have potentially been impacted and prevented from claiming compensation retrospectively.

Vincent Cable: From a human point of view, drawing a line at that point clearly caused damage. However, on a wide variety of measures the House has always taken the view that retrospective legislation is dangerous and creates all kinds of problems.
	A number of individuals believe that they have been affected by the blacklisting and they have taken action through the courts. As I understand it at the moment, last year 86 workers who believed that they were blacklisted launched a High Court claim against Sir Robert McAlpine for conspiring with other firms to keep them out of work. Legal proceedings on that action are still under way, so I cannot usefully discuss the matter. However, a major legal action is taking place and it will, of course, affect the issue of redress.
	In conclusion, I repeat the points I made a moment ago. My primary concern, in the job that I now have, is what is happening under the Government in respect of my responsibilities in this field. I am concerned to read that abuse is, or even may be, taking place. My door is open at any time to any Opposition or Government Member who has evidence of abuse, because we want to stop it and we will certainly investigate it if it is happening. I will look carefully at the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee to see whether fundamentally new questions have emerged from its inquiry.
	We will deal with the other issues in the summary session. If Opposition Members or trade unions have evidence, I really want them to bring it forward. Innuendo is not helpful; we need evidence.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am going to introduce an eight-minute limit; hopefully, we will try to shave a little off the speeches here and there. We will see what we can do.

Tessa Jowell: I welcome this debate and the “open door” tone of the Secretary of State’s approach, and I hope that we can build on that and reach a practical conclusion. The debate gives the House the opportunity to unite in condemning blacklisting as an assault on the legitimate rights of trade unionists. My second reason for welcoming the debate is that I want to underline the extent to which excellent partnership between trade unions and contractors
	is essential to achieving the progress in big infrastructure projects, particularly when building on the success of the construction programme in the Olympic park.
	I will dwell only briefly on the analogy with phone hacking. It appears that in certain parts of the industry, phone hacking became insidious, endemic and culturally tolerated. The question that the Opposition are testing is the extent to which a similar acquiescence prevails in the construction industry today, even in the context of the very best intentions.
	I should like to focus specifically on the construction of the Olympic park. To provide context, I should say that the work of the trade unions was the hallmark of the success of the Olympic park development. In that context, the allegations revealed by the widely praised and thorough investigation by the Scottish Affairs Committee come as a surprise and cause great alarm. Had it not been for the persistence and determination of the Committee, we would not be having this debate.
	As we embarked on the construction of the Olympic park, there was a determination by the then Government that every public pound should work harder for a social purpose. A number of months were spent negotiating principles of co-operation with the trade unions. The signatories to those principles were the Government, the Olympic Delivery Authority, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and the Mayor of London. The essence of the principles is captured in their pledge:
	“The procurement processes will require contractors to uphold employment law and encourage them to promote effective industrial relations dialogue between employers and recognised unions, apply industry agreements, and to encourage a positive role for recognised unions in the workplace.”
	I argue that those commitments set a blueprint for good industrial practice. They reaped great benefits for the country and for the regeneration of the Olympic park.
	However, so insidious is the practice of blacklisting that, as has been mentioned, one of the contractors, Balfour Beatty, felt that it was okay and acceptable to check the database of the consulting association in relation to 12 employees. The fact that all 12 went on to get employment is not the point; the point is that Balfour Beatty felt that it was okay to use the practice of blacklisting to check the people out. That is completely antipathetic to the whole ethos of the development, in partnership with the trade unions, of the Olympic park.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I understand what the right hon. Lady said about the negotiations beforehand that took so long to get to this point and yet still blacklisting happened. Knowing what she does now, and having been involved in those negotiations in the past, what does she believe to be the lessons we can learn so that what happened cannot happen in future?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I refer again to the Secretary of State’s reaction to this debate, which is to say, “Give me the evidence”, and that is perfectly fair. However, right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches, and no doubt Members in all parts of the House, sense that this reprehensible practice has not been squeezed out of the construction industry altogether. This is an opportunity for the House to come together and set the scale of its resolve to end this practice and, in so doing, create a
	sense of liberation for many trade unionists who feel that it is always a threat sitting on their shoulder. That is why we are asking for this action. Specifically, we are looking at all the legal obstacles and impediments to bringing forward the necessary action and sanctions when construction firms fall short and resort to this practice, in whatever way.
	The Olympic Delivery Authority had a senior trade unionist on its board as a way of facilitating easy access to the trade unions in voicing their concerns. I thank Barry Camfield, who was a senior official of the then Transport and General Workers Union, for the service that he gave. Many other progressive initiatives supported the central objective of partnership in the development of the Olympic park, including the establishment of a community and trade union learning centre that had a permanent presence in the park and gave hundreds of learners who were working there the opportunity to improve their English and maths skills and to master basic IT, and the promotion of opportunities for women and disabled people to find a place in the construction industry. The bigger mission was to change the face of the construction industry from being predominantly older and male to something much more diverse and much more open to the range of available skills, and there were huge achievements.
	There was an emphasis on health and safety at the Olympic park. As we have heard, sometimes the fact that a trade unionist was very vigilant about reporting health and safety matters could be cause for discrimination against them. At the Olympic park, health and safety was given pre-eminence to such a level of achievement that the ODA was awarded a Diamond Jubilee award by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It is unprecedented for a construction project of that size, scale and complexity to be completed without a single serious reported accident or a single death. That is what we get through partnership with the trade unions.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I congratulate the Opposition on bringing this motion before the House. I tried to intervene on the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), when he was about to deal with a part of the motion that needs a tiny bit of clarity—where it states that blacklisting “may be taking place” still.

Chuka Umunna: I am happy to explain that. It goes back to a point made by the Secretary of State. I used the word “may” because there have been a lot of allegations about what may be happening right now, but we need people to come forward with the evidence. I believe that that evidence will be forthcoming to the Secretary of State fairly quickly after this debate.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that.
	I have no great knowledge of blacklisting, so when I decided to look into it for the purposes of this debate I read through the papers from the Scottish Affairs Committee, and it became fairly obvious that something pretty horrible had been happening over a long period. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood
	(Dame Tessa Jowell) detailed her achievements in the delivery of the Olympic park. It is fascinating that even with such detailed negotiations involving the Olympic Delivery Authority, Government and trade unions, this practice could still take place. I would therefore ask her how, even with such detailed negotiations beforehand and probably a very beady eye being cast over all the proceedings, we can stop this practice happening. There is a lesson to be learned in relation to contracts and how we procure in future.

Henry Bellingham: I have been contacted by trade unions in my constituency that are very concerned that some of my constituents might have been on the blacklist. Obviously, this will all come out in due course as the investigation gains pace. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the case is made for a change in the law, that could involve a very simple amendment to the relevant legislation, and the Government should act with great haste to make sure that this is sorted out?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I very much hope that that is the case and thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
	The shadow Secretary of State talked about how different Governments had tried to act on this but found it difficult. I completely understand that, having gone through the history of blacklisting as best I could with the information provided to me. In 2003, as he detailed, the former Labour Government consulted on introducing regulations against blacklisting but announced that they would not bring any into force because the evidence suggested that blacklisting had been eradicated in the 1990s. Six years later, in 2009, they announced that they had plans to implement regulations to outlaw the blacklisting of trade unionists. I was quite surprised to find that Labour chose not to make compensation or penalties retrospective. If the weight of evidence that would be required was not available back in 2009 when the shadow Secretary of State’s party was making those choices and decisions, why is it so relevant to secure it now? As the Secretary of State said, and as the shadow Secretary of State will know, retrospective action has lots of unforeseen consequences and is therefore rarely taken by any Government of any political ilk.
	In 2008, when the Information Commissioner’s Office closed down the blacklisting of construction workers by the Consulting Association, it did its job in a reasonable way, if slightly slowly, as the hon. Member for Streatham said. It went about trying to establish a fast-track service and a helpline to assist those who suspected that they had been on the list, but many significant entries on that list were incomplete and very dated. I therefore suspect that the gathering of the information slowed down the ICO’s investigation.
	The law does now protect employees from blacklisting. When I read through the history in the articles I had assembled, I thought—this has not been mentioned by anyone else—that the problem is not so much the existence of a blacklist but people knowing of its existence and having to worry about whether their employment chances are affected by its being in effect. The pure knowledge of the existence of the list has a huge detrimental effect on people.

Cathy Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should look into the suggestion that there has been a separate blacklist of people who have been involved in
	environmental activism? As he rightly says, the fact that people are aware that a blacklist exists means that they will also want to know how to get information about whether their names have been included and how it has affected them.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I would hope that the current legislation would help to eliminate those issues and tidy them up. I could make a few political points, but I am trying to reflect the feeling of the debate so far. Employees in the UK are already protected against blacklisting by the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. The regulations allow them to bring a case to a civil court or employment tribunal, as detailed by the Secretary of State, if they suspect that they have been denied employment, suffered detriment or been unfairly dismissed as a result of an illegal blacklist.
	The Information Commissioner’s Office is working to help people who are concerned that they have been affected in such a way and is, supposedly,
	“committed to investigating any intelligence databases being operated in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.”
	The ICO continues to help people who are suspected of being on a list and is doing more, supposedly, proactively to contact others who do not know that their names are on a list in the first place.
	We have to wonder whether the ICO has the capability to do the job that we are asking it to do, or the job that it has been doing, in its given time frame. It has so many names with only basic entries—some with no addresses and others without much detail at all—and finding and contacting them will take a huge amount of time. I am not arguing for more resources for the ICO; I am just making the point that this is a fairly big job on a fairly lax database, and that needs to be investigated.
	I think I heard the Secretary of State say that there is no evidence that the practice of blacklisting trade union members is a widespread problem. I am comfortable, to a certain point, with the questions he asked of the Opposition, because the tiny bit of the motion that says that the practice “may be” happening now opens a new kettle of fish. It should not be going on now, because it is illegal under the 1999 Act.
	The ICO undertook an investigation in 2008-09 and the Labour Government subsequently introduced blacklisting regulations. Given that the Scottish Affairs Committee has been given seemingly new evidence by those involved at the time, will the Secretary of State confirm whether there are grounds to go over the ICO’s original investigation?
	I have tried to be non-partisan up to a point. I have some interesting experiences of trade unions. I used to run a business that operated with the help or hindrance of the Transport and General Workers Union. I ran the business during the last closed shop. It was not a great experience and it did not endear me to unions. However, I have a close relative who is a teacher and who was accused of doing something ridiculous. His teaching union—yes, one of those teaching unions that we on the Conservative Benches do not particularly like—was magnificent in the way in which it protected, helped and supported him. It provided a superb service.
	I am not as wary of unions as some of the others on the Conservative Benches and I perhaps have more knowledge of them. I am, however, wary of the way this debate came to take place. The hon. Member for Streatham should be very wary of the potential for allegations to be made with regard to union paymasters and so on. [Interruption.] That is absolutely the case. We need only look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests to see that there might be a link between debates on the Floor of the House and where they came from.

Natascha Engel: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made that final connection, because I did not think that such a comment would be made during the debate.
	The Secretary of State asked: why have this debate now? My response is: at last. We as trade unionists—I am a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the GMB, and a former trade union organiser—have been campaigning on this issue, which we know has been going on, mainly in the construction industry, but possibly in many other industries too, for many years.
	It is also important to note that it is almost exactly 100 years since Robert Tressell wrote “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”, which was based on poverty wages, people’s terror of losing their job, and conditions at work that were almost impossible to bear. It has descriptions of people literally dying at work in the construction industry because conditions were so bad. It is only as the result of the introduction of the trade union movement, which led to decent health and safety laws, that the kinds of conditions described in the book have, thankfully, stopped.
	If we look at the effect of blacklisting—I want to widen the debate a little—we will see that it undermines every single one of those hard-fought trade union rights that we have won. It also undermines decent, good, honest people who go to work.

David Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that anyone who is blacklisted because they have raised health and safety issues is actually being blacklisted for carrying out a legal duty? Every employee who has a concern about a health and safety issue has a legal responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to report it. These people are not just being sacked, they are being refused access to work, so the problem is compounded by what employers are doing.

Natascha Engel: The one point that I want to make in my short speech is exactly that: not only are people raising legitimate issues; it is their legal duty to do so. Blacklisting is illegal, and it is illegal for a very good reason. Trade union organised workplaces are safer places to work, and for that reason, they are also more productive places to work. Blacklisting undermines every single one of those issues.
	We need to remind ourselves of what the construction industry really is and what it means to be a construction worker. These are not office jobs; they are dangerous, risky jobs. People often work at great heights or with gas, electricity or asbestos, and they often have to travel
	miles away from home. It is insecure work, dependent on insecure contracts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Secretary of State, has said, people move away from their homes to get to these jobs and, once they are there, they do not know when they will get their next job. People are not paid much money for these jobs. Some are directly employed, but there is a system of bogus self-employment—of indirect employment through sub-contracting—which makes this a dangerous industry in which to work, and blacklisting only adds to that danger.
	I want to build on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) said about the Olympic village and the Olympic park. UCATT has proof that a different set of rules was applied to the Olympic park and the Olympic village. As has been said, in the main the park directly employed people on what were complicated construction jobs, and the number of accidents and injuries was far lower than that on the site of the Olympic village, which was arguably a far more straightforward site because it involved building housing. Sixty-six per cent. less people on the Olympic park suffered accident or injury than on the Olympic village, which had a system of sub-contracting and lots of casual labour. That statistic in itself demonstrates the importance of direct employment in the construction industry, and the importance of trade unions.
	The Department of Trade and Industry, as it was in the good old days when Labour were in government in 2007, produced a report about health and safety representatives—this goes back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson—stating that safety reps save the economy between £181 million and £578 million per annum. Even given the standards used by the Government and the comments of the hon. Member for Daventry, those are staggering savings for our economy. Trade union health and safety reps prevent between 8,000 and 13,000 workplace accidents. For trade unions to be present in the workplace is positive.

Sarah Champion: A number of my constituents have contacted me about blacklisting, which unfortunately they have suffered from historically. There has been much debate about proof, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that blacklisting is still going on with Crossrail. Unfortunately, however, unless there is an investigation, we will not be able to prove that as a fact. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that he will make a clear statement about High Speed 2, and ensure that no blacklisting is allowed?

Natascha Engel: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has promoted me to Secretary for State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and in that brief capacity I will confirm what she asks. This is a very important point. Blacklisting is terrible because it is clandestine and secret, and unless we have an investigation and inquiry into the practice, we cannot know how widespread it is. It must be rooted out, and my hon. Friend makes a very fair point.
	A TUC report from 2011 looks at the productivity gains of trade union membership—I want to emphasise the positives of trade unions to the economy. The
	productivity gain to the UK economy as a result of trade union reps in the workplace was estimated at between £4 billion and £12 billion—absolutely staggering figures—and savings of between £82 million and £143 million in legal and recruitment costs. When looking at blacklisting we need to focus on the bad side of attacking the perfectly legal and important activity of someone being in a trade union and ensuring that people feel confident enough to report any health and safety risks at work, especially in a dangerous industry such as construction.
	I will conclude by saying that blacklisting totally undermines the good work done in good faith by trade unions at work. Freedom of affiliation is a mark of our democracy. Blacklisting is not just illegal, it is completely anti-democratic. A construction worker’s life is hard enough already, and we must ensure that blacklisting stops once and for all, so that a hard life is not made unnecessarily harder still.

Gordon Birtwistle: I will not delay the House long, because the Secretary of State has commented on most of the things that I was going to say. However, I agree with the rest of the House: we should obviously outlaw blacklisting in this country.
	In January 2010 the Labour Government passed the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which made it unlawful to compile, sell or use a “prohibited list”, or blacklist. Those regulations also include information on what a prohibited list would include. Therefore, as I understand it, the law is in place and does not allow retrospective claims. I would be pleased to be corrected, but I understand that that law has been in place since January 2010, and the Secretary of State is right to say that if blacklisting is continuing, we need to know and amend the law already in place.

Chuka Umunna: On that point and the existing legal redress, as I said in my speech, false self-employment is totally rampant in the construction sector, and part of the problem with the existing law is that it does not cover a situation where someone is working as a contractor, because for them to get redress from those responsible for engaging in such activities is currently very difficult.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am happy with that intervention, which basically confirms what I have just said. If the law at the moment is not suitable, it needs to be changed. If there is proof of blacklisting from 2010 onwards when the law was introduced, an investigation should be initiated. If we find that the law is still being contravened and is not suitable to resolve the problem, that law needs to be looked at. I think the Secretary of State implied that in his contribution.
	I come from the engineering industry, which is equally as dangerous as the construction industry, although I think engineering receives far more visits from the Health and Safety Executive than the construction and mining industries. Perhaps we could get some information from the Health and Safety Executive on why it feels that blacklisting is creating a lot of health and safety issues.

Ian Lavery: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate ever so slightly on how he believes the Health and Safety Executive could confirm whether blacklisting is taking place in any industry?

Gordon Birtwistle: It could perhaps confirm that, in the construction industry, health and safety issues are not being taken seriously—perhaps I can put it like that—and then report back to the Secretary of State as part of his investigation.
	In September 2012 the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) stated:
	“Employees in the UK are protected against blacklisting by the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. The Regulations allow them to bring a case to a civil court or an employment tribunal if they suspect that they have been denied employment, suffered detriment or been unfairly dismissed as a result of the use of an illegal blacklist.
	As there is no evidence that the practice of blacklisting of trade union members is a widespread problem—”
	since 2010—
	“the Government do not believe that there is a need for further steps at this time.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2010; Vol. 550, c. 109W.]
	The shadow Secretary of State says that there is new evidence, and if he is able to show the Secretary of State evidence that the law since 2010 has not been working, perhaps it would be a good idea for him to do that and for the Business Secretary to accept it and instigate what is asked for in the motion.

Chuka Umunna: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Birtwistle: No, because a lot of other Members want to speak. The Secretary of State has already indicated that he does not intend to press this to a vote and that is he prepared to listen to new evidence and hold cross-party talks with Members and with trade unions. If there is evidence that the law is not strong enough or that it has been broken, and that people who claim to have been blacklisted are not being listened to, he has said he is prepared to take that forward and look at a possible change in the law. I agree: I do not think we should have a vote tonight, as most sensible people would agree that we need to look at the issue again, and if it is proven that things have changed since 2010, we need to change the law. I support what the Secretary of State said earlier.-

John Mann: Blacklisting is not a new problem. We can go back to 1906, before “The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists”, when my great-grandfather was called to Monksbridge ironworks by his Liberal employer and told, “You can be a trade unionist, but if you join the Labour party,”—the new Leeds Labour party had been formed—“you will not work again.” For quite some time he did not, which created huge poverty.
	In 1924, the Zinoviev letter was part-leaked by the new Economic League, which was formed by a Tory MP using parliamentary facilities. The Economic League continued—I came across it by accident in the 1980s when I applied for a job at Ciba-Geigy in Manchester. I went for an interview and was given the job. It was confirmed, and I was pleased because I wanted to move back north and it was good money, but a week later I get a phone call. A very embarrassed human resources person—I believe that is what they called them in those days—rings me up and says, “I’m very sorry, but you’re on a blacklist.” I said, “What do you mean I’m on a
	blacklist?” She said, “You’re on an economic blacklist and it’s our policy. There’s nothing I can do.” She was very embarrassed about it, but said, “You can’t have the job. The offer is withdrawn.”
	That was the Economic League blacklist. Who put me on and for what reason I do not know. I was regarded by some as a pillar of the establishment at the time. I was described in one book as a veteran anti-Trotskyist fighter against the Militant Tendency and others, but somehow, I ended up on that blacklist. It could well have happened because my in-laws were members of that dreaded organisation the Communist party—they were well to the right of me and anyone in the Labour party. My mother-in-law was the president of the Sussex Communist party, and must therefore have been a known agitator—as a midwife. Alternatively and more seriously, I was almost certainly on the blacklist because—I have read up on this—I was involved organising the national anti-apartheid demonstrations. I organised a number of the students who went and was part of the team who pulled together the national demonstrations with Oliver Tambo and Jesse Jackson. Lots of hon. Members from different parties were no doubt there, but if they look back, they will see that anyone involved in the anti-apartheid movement somehow managed to get on the Economic League blacklist.
	I already had a job, so being blacklisted did not affect me like it affected my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton). Not surprisingly, being a communist agitator and strike leader, he ended up on the same blacklist and could not find work. Luckily, I already had a job, so it did not cost me economically. However, I knew I was on the blacklist only because of the honesty of the embarrassed woman at Ciba-Geigy who told me.
	If hon. Members look, they will see that there were not just a few thousand people on the blacklists but vast numbers. The companies funding the new body are the same construction companies. When one is exposed, they roll it into another. The perception is that some people are a threat to the employer, but that is total nonsense. The big fact and the big problem is that the vast majority on the blacklists do not know they are on them to this day. Those of us who are politically active might find out we are on the list—we can guess or work it out—but the vast majority simply would not know. Those people are going about their everyday business, and some nerd in an office sticks them on a list.
	Let me tell the House about the nerds—I exposed one of them. This is an interesting story. When I was an official for the engineering union, we had a researcher. He was a strange lad because he came to see me every day with Trotskyist newspapers. I thought I knew about Trotskyist newspapers but he had ones I had never heard of. Hon. Members know that Trotskyists were like those in “The Life of Brian”—there were many factions and groupings and every one had to have a newspaper. Obviously, people were publishing their own newspapers. No one had ever heard of them but the lad had copies and would say, “Do you know this or that person?” I just thought he was a bit of a loony. He was. We caught him dealing Nazi memorabilia at Waterloo train station, which is odd for a researcher in a union. We challenged him and he left the next week, but there was a problem with his pension and we had to ring him about it two months later. We rang his number, which
	was a strange number, and a bloke answers it and says, “Economic League blacklist.” The lad had been using his position to infiltrate the union. He was sticking all sorts of random names on the list—no doubt there was payment by results. He was building up a list of people who would then not get work as a result.
	That is the problem, and it exists not just in construction. I shall reveal another example from the Prison Service and Ranby prison—the Secretary of State wants information; he can have some. If the senior prison management do not like a person, they say they are a security risk. If a person is a security risk, they are not allowed a tribunal by definition. Rebecca Knighton, for example, was a lecturer at Ranby prison. She was drummed out on false premises that were without question made up, as confirmed by my own investigation, because her face did not fit. She cannot work throughout the Prison Service again because she is on a list as being a security threat.
	A whole stack of prison officers, who have slightly more rights—I will not name them because we are currently fighting some of their cases—have their names on the list, which means they will not work in any prison anywhere in the country. A similar type of blacklist is created. It is invidious, unfair and anti-democratic. It is quite clear that Ms Knighton and the other prison officers at Ranby whom I have dealt with in my constituency have done nothing wrong—not even on the margins. They have done nothing, but have been stitched up for totally arbitrary reasons by individuals with access to management. I have privately called for a full investigation, but the example shows how blacklisting can work.
	I was at the rally of the independent construction workers in Newark to argue about local jobs at the various power stations in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere in the country. A lot of those who get stuck on the blacklists, including my constituents, suspect they are on the lists but can never prove it. That has been the case until now. There will be other lists.
	That is why the law needs to be improved. The Secretary of State was correct to say that the previous did Government did not get the law right, but that is not an excuse for this Parliament not putting it right. People should not unfairly and unknowingly lose their employment prospects because of prejudice or bias, or because of an argument they have had. In reality, that is how people get their names on the list. They are not political activists, and normally they are not trade union activists. The vast majority are on the list because they have had some fall-out with one of the gaffers. That is how they get on the list—entirely arbitrarily—and they do not have a clue why they cannot get jobs. That is why something needs to be done.

Kris Hopkins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who made a passionate speech. I have been contacted by several constituents regarding the practice of blacklisting and welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I condemn those companies and individuals who have carried out such practices and note that the law now protects employees from blacklisting. Individuals can
	bring civil cases and take their case to employment tribunals if they suspect that they have been denied employment or that they have been unfairly dismissed as a result of illegal blacklisting.
	I also note that, since the Information Commissioner’s investigation and the introduction of the blacklisting regulations in 2010, no evidence has been brought forward. Hon. Members have commented on cases today, and I look forward to hearing the evidence—the Secretary of State has said that he, too, looks forward to receiving it. I must therefore ask myself why we are having this debate. As a working-class bloke who has worked on building sites, I look to my bourgeois new Labour friends in the Opposition and conclude that the debate must be some form of guilt trip, because in 13 years of government, they introduced a regulation only 60 days before they left—it was in place for longer than the 50p tax hike that Labour introduced and claimed was a saving for the nation. The Labour Government let down a lot of people. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, that is not an excuse for this Parliament not to address the problem, but the Labour Government failed.
	Why are we having this debate today? I believe the trade unions have put an enormous amount of pressure on the Labour party—they are the Labour party’s paymasters. The Opposition have been obliged to introduce the debate. It is not so much a “Cash for debate” debate as a “Repent for Cash” debate. As we have heard, Labour Members are appalled, shocked and ashamed, but—I am sorry—they need to look in the mirror, because that is where a lot of the drama is as far as the blacklisting problem is concerned.

Chuka Umunna: For the record, I think the comments the hon. Gentleman has just made are totally and utterly disgraceful, and not in keeping with the tone of this debate. I invite him to reflect on what his constituents are thinking as they watch him make this speech. The suggestion that somehow some undue influence has been put on us to secure this debate, or that somehow there has been any money involved whatsoever, is disgraceful and should be withdrawn.

Kris Hopkins: I absolutely stick with those words. For 13 years the Labour Government failed to address this issue, and then 60 days before the election they pop up and introduce a piece of legislation that somehow justifies their failure to look after working-class people. It is important that we have confidence in the Information Commissioner’s Office, that it has the laws available to pursue individuals and companies who are breaking the law, that there is a constant appraisal of the intelligence offered by different parties and that it acts on any relevant information, and that any victims of such acts have a clear route to redress. I am also pleased that we have a maximum penalty of £500,000, which is an important deterrent to individuals who may carry out such practices.
	All through my time in employment I have been a great supporter of sensible trade unions, and all through my political career I have continued to build a strong relationship with them. It is extremely important that they have that responsibility. They have an important role to play in the workplace. If this was a Government debate on an issue promoted by a Tory donor, the Opposition would be outraged. While 81% of the Labour
	party’s funding comes from trade unions, including an £11,000 bung for the shadow Business Secretary, then although I think this issue is extremely serious—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) must bear in mind that a bung is not something that we will accept. That is a suggestion that the shadow Business Secretary has been paid for this, and I hope that the word “bung” will be withdrawn.

Kris Hopkins: Absolutely. I withdraw. That is an £11,000 down-payment to the shadow Business Secretary. Although I think this issue is extremely serious—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just suggest that I do not believe any money is paid to Members themselves—the office maybe, but I suggest that a Member is not directly in receipt of that money? We have to be very careful about how we use this language. I do not want the debate to deteriorate. It has been a good debate and both sides have been very honest, but we have to be very careful—we are on the line.

Kris Hopkins: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course I will take that back, if that is appropriate.
	This is an extremely serious issue. I applaud the excellent work of the ICO, and it should continue. I feel that this House is not used to its maximum when we have such a debate, which is motivated by such reasons. I am sorry that Labour has had to use an Opposition debate to recognise its own failures. I am absolutely sure that the Secretary of State, as he said earlier on, will take up these issues. It is a shame that the Opposition do not have confidence in the regulations that they brought forward.

Ian Lavery: The debate has been well received, apart from the contribution by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who made some disparaging remarks about a whole number of people which were totally and utterly outrageous. It is good to see that he is completely isolated. Hopefully, that will remain the case. I, for one, will not be rising to the bait. I am very proud to be a member of a number of trade unions, and to represent trade unions both in Parliament and in my constituency.
	I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Business Secretary. I share his desire to end the obscene scandal of blacklisting. At Prime Minister’s questions, an issue was raised about the secrecy of the secret services and the police being involved in trade unions, blacklisting and other things. I was in a meeting this morning with representatives of the Shrewsbury pickets, who were on strike in 1972. Some were jailed and some died as a consequence, and they are still looking for justice. They have just received a letter from a Minister saying that even though it happened nearly 40 years ago, the papers relating to the case will not be released because it is a matter of national security. The individual concerned was Jim Royle—Mr Tomlinson—whose reaction to that was, “My arse!” That is a quotation from him, not from me—it is the way he is.
	I merely highlight the point that there are interventions and happenings by the security services and the police with ordinary working people every day of the year. For the Secretary of State to suggest that we do not have any evidence, or that it might not be happening at this point in time, is pure poppycock. Of course it is happening. The reason why people are not rushing forward with evidence is because the evidence is not at hand. There might be people here who have been, and are still are, on a blacklist, but they are not sure, so how can they come forward? The difference now is that recently, in the Scottish Affairs inquiry, a whole number of people have given evidence agreeing that not only have they been involved in blacklisting, but they have been operating blacklisting for a cost, to the detriment of thousands and thousands of people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said that blacklisting goes back to the beginning of the 20th( )century. A little bit of research showed that, according to the “Henry Holt Encyclopaedia of Word and Phrase Origins”, the word “blacklist” originated with a list that England’s King Charles II made of 58 judges and court officers who sentenced his father to death. When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, some 13 of those executioners were put to death and 25 sentenced to life imprisonment. The others escaped. Times have changed, of course, which is not to say that some Government Members, perhaps the hon. Member for Keighley, agree that people on blacklists might be beheaded in the future. I am not suggesting that that is the case, however, and I will move on.
	Some 400 years have passed since we had the 17th-century monarch taking away individuals lives; now we have 21st-century employers destroying people’s lives by denying them the opportunity to earn a living.

Ian Mearns: Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about what the punishment should be for individual directors who, through their companies, fund the organisation of blacklists? Would he suggest that they be struck off as directors and barred from holding such office?

Ian Lavery: That is a very important question indeed, which I will come on to, if I get that far in my speech.
	The blacklisting of trade unionists is an unfair and insidious practice that involves the systematic compilation of information about individual trade unionists by their employers and recruiters in order to discriminate against them, although not just because they are members of trade unions. There are people on blacklists who are not members of trade unions, but who have merely been to their employer and exercised their rights under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said. If there is something wrong in the workplace, there is a duty under that Act to report it. As far as we are aware, people have suffered the consequences of doing that.
	We are all very much aware of the information being discussed by the Scottish Affairs Committee. To be honest, I think it has been invaluable, because it has brought the issue to the forefront. For many years it has been hidden, but for the first time we now have real evidence. I believe that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, information will come forward after this debate for the Secretary of State to make some
	decisions on an inquiry. Some 3,600 files were seized by the Information Commissioner’s Office—files on politicians, academics, journalists, trade unionists and people who might just say, “Boo!” to their employers, who might not like it. There are many, many files. The Consulting Association’s blacklist, however, contained around 3,213 individuals and was used by more than 40 contractors, including most major UK construction firms, which vet individuals for employment.
	A mass of information was left behind because it was not covered by any warrant. The information seized revealed that 40 of the biggest construction companies in Britain were drawn to paying money to find out who they should not employ. They included household names such as Taylor Woodrow, McAlpine, Balfour Beatty, Skandia and Carillion. To pick up the point my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) made, on its own admission, Carillion has had £2.5 billion per annum from public contracts, at the same time as placing ordinary citizens on blacklists and stopping them working. It cannot be allowed and it must be stopped as soon as practicably possible. From July to September 2008, McAlpine spent £12,839 making 5,836 blacklist checks—a total of 63 a day. That corresponded with McAlpine’s building of the Olympic stadium. How disgraceful can you get? A major company such as McAlpine penalising people for whatever, at the same time as having multi-million-pound Government contracts, is, as many people have said, absolutely insidious.
	I believe we should perhaps go a little further than we have discussed today. I am obviously willing for more debate and discussion; indeed, if the Secretary of State is furnished with enough information, we should have a public inquiry into blacklisting on a par with Leveson. We need to call for those guilty of blacklisting not to be given any more public contracts until they apologise and compensate people and their families for blacklisting them. We definitely need a change in the law to make blacklisting a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and unlimited fines. That would be a deterrent for blacklisting—that is something that we should be looking at and it should be in legislation. Carillion has been named. It is important that other organisations come clean, come to the fore, step up to the plate, erase the past, look to the future and stop blacklisting people, causing mayhem and financial distress to many, many people.
	My heart gans out to them people who might be listening to this debate and thinking, “I’ve not had a job for many years; I wonder if I’m on the list,” and they cannot find out whether they are. Let us deliver a real result from this debate for those people, hopefully, as has been suggested—the Secretary of State says he has an open door—with the information we can bring forward. Let us hope that this is the first of many important debates to ensure that justice is seen to be done for those on blacklists and to prevent blacklisting in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am keen to get the last four speakers in, so please do not take it personally, Mr Rotheram, but we are dropping the time limit to six minutes.

Steve Rotheram: I congratulate the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), on demonstrating Labour’s solidarity with the construction industry by tabling the motion for today’s important debate. I also congratulate all Members who have spoken—with the obvious exception of the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who could not even be bothered to follow parliamentary convention and stay in the Chamber for two debates after he had spoken.
	After decades in which successive Parliaments have failed to rectify a national disgrace, we would not be here today without the solidarity, dignity and determination of the rank-and-file construction workers, whose spirit and tenacity in the face of adversity and hardship has been truly inspirational. I would like to place on record my gratitude to the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, which I first joined as a teenage apprentice bricklayer in 1979—[Interruption.] No, it was not child labour. UCATT has led the fight on behalf of construction workers for many decades.
	In October last year, I tabled early-day motion 609, entitled “Blacklisted Workers”, which urged colleagues to support the call for justice for those placed on lists that prevented them from gaining or retaining jobs. To date, the early-day motion has received the support of 68 Members from six political parties. It should be pointed out, however, that not a single Conservative and only one Liberal Democrat bothered to sign it. Perhaps that will change after today’s debate, which has given us the chance to put clearly on the record whether we are on the side of insidious and immoral business practices or on the side of ordinary hard-working people.
	Let me also declare an interest. Before coming to this place, I spent the best part of three decades working in the construction sector in one guise or another and saw first hand the effect that blacklisting had. Blacklisting is a national scandal, and recent revelations have demonstrated that the regulations introduced in the last decades did not go far enough.
	I want to use my contribution to outline three things that I believe must now happen. First, I absolutely want to see all forms of blacklisting made illegal; secondly, I want to see criminal sanctions brought to bear against any individual or organisation that supplied, solicited or used blacklisting material; and finally, I want to see the introduction through primary legislation of a blacklisted worker’s right to compensation.
	March 2009 proved to be a landmark moment for the construction industry. As we have heard, the ICO uncovered evidence against 44 companies—44 of some of the biggest companies in the industry—clearly showing that they were corrupt to the very core. They had purchased blacklists and used them to deny construction workers their legitimate right of employment. What made these revelations all the more devastating was that the companies that used blacklists were the same companies profiteering from millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money through public sector contracts.
	How do we begin to end this scandal? It has to start by making blacklisting illegal. Looking specifically at the legislation that governs the rights of trade union members, we can clearly see that it does not offer adequate protection. First, section 137 of
	the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to employ someone because of his or her membership or non-membership of a trade union. The Act does not make blacklisting illegal.
	Secondly, there is the Data Protection Act 1998—the Act eventually used to prosecute Ian Kerr, the man who ran the Consulting Association. It is unclear with this Act whether or not a person’s trade union activity qualifies as data in the same way as details of a person’s trade union membership number qualifies as data. The gap in legislation needs to be addressed, because until we amend the law explicitly to state that blacklisting is illegal, the Act will not adequately protect workers.
	The third piece of legislation is the Employment Relations Act 1999, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the use or sale of blacklists. The last Labour Government did many things well—we improved the health and safety of construction workers, and their employment rights, more than any other Government in history—but, in my opinion, we missed the chance to end this scandal once and for all. I hope that the Secretary of State will learn from previous mistakes.
	I shall have to leave out the next bit of my speech, because the time limit is down to six minutes, and after taking out four pages—I think I am finally there—

Ian Mearns: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Steve Rotheram: Of course.

Ian Mearns: I wonder whether, in the last couple of moments available to him, my hon. Friend has time to suggest what should happen to those who are guilty of using blacklists as part of their employment practice.

Steve Rotheram: I thank my hon. Friend for saving me.
	I know from personal experience that those who found themselves on blacklists were the kind of workers who fought for a safer work environment for themselves and their colleagues. They were the kind of workers who did not turn a blind eye when the company tried to dock apprentices’ wages, or failed to pay the work force on time. What kind of Parliament would we be if we failed to stand up for responsible workers who have been punished by irresponsible companies for many years?
	We should all remember that blacklisting was not an act of blissful ignorance, but an act of blatant immorality. It should never be allowed to happen again.

David Anderson: Let me first put on record for the benefit of the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is no longer in the Chamber, that all the legislation that controls donations to trade unions was passed by his party when it was in government. Let me also put it on record that none of the people who donate money to the Labour party are languishing in jail, unlike people who have funded the two coalition parties, namely Michael Brown and Asil Nadir.
	The motion ought not to divide the House, but I want to hear from the Minister whether she agrees with the last three lines of it, because that is the “doing” part. Will she commit herself to
	“begin an investigation into the extent to which blacklisting took place and may be taking place”?
	If, like the Secretary of State, she is going to try to dance on the head of a pin and, basically, say “It is everyone’s responsibility except mine”, she may as well divide the House. If she does not intend to do anything serious about this, we may as well forget about it.
	This debate is about fairness, it is about justice, and it is about what most of us mean by being British. What do we mean by that? We mean that we, as a people, have an innate sense of fair play: we believe that everyone is innocent until proved guilty, and we accept that anyone who is accused of wrongdoing should at least have the right to clear their name. Blacklisting denies people those basic tenets in which we all believe as a nation and which are among the things that bind us together, and it has got to stop.
	Let me tell the House about my history in relation to blacklisting. The most important person I know of who was blacklisted was someone whom I never met: my own grandfather. My grandfather was a local official in the Durham Miners Association during the 1926 strike. At the end of the strike, after he had been out of work for six months, he was told—like my good friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton)—“You are not coming back to work.” He was told by the manager, when he went to his house, “Gus, I want you back at work, but if I took you back, the owners would send me down the road.” The owners just happened to be the Bowes Lyon family, who, as we knew, ran this country and ruled this country for many years. That was the attitude that they took nearly a century ago.
	Eight years of poverty followed. My grandfather died in abject poverty, which meant that my 14-year-old father became the family breadwinner. He was sent down the mines—against his wishes and the wishes of his mother, but there was no alternative.
	In recent history, there were disputes in the mines in the 1970s and 1980s. There was clearly state intervention in all three of those disputes, but that was particularly the case in 1984-85. Nobody seriously doubts that within that dispute there was infiltration of the National Union of Mineworkers at the highest level; there was infiltration by MI5 in the general secretary’s office, and there were agent provocateurs on the ground. State employees were directing people in the back to work movement, and we saw the use of the military on the picket line and the very clear politicisation of the police. It is good news that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now investigating the possibility that evidence was tampered with at Orgreave—we may at last get the truth from that.
	Despite that history—despite the fact that 11,000 people were arrested during the miners’ strike, hundreds were jailed and more than 1,000 people were sacked—there is a qualitative difference between that dispute and what we are dealing with today. At least in that dispute most people had an inkling of what they were being accused of. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian might not have liked the fact that he was accused of doing certain things, but at least he knew that that was happening
	to him. He lost his job because of what was said about him, but people do not have a clue that this blacklisting is happening to them—that is the really invidious thing. It is simply unfair for people to be facing that. The people facing the blacklisting are on that list without knowing it, without the chance to make their case and without there being any trace of natural justice.
	These people may have been placed on that list with the collusion of the police and the Security Service—those are not my words, but the words of the investigation manager of the ICO. If the Secretary of State does nothing else as a result of this debate, he should surely invite that gentleman to come in and have a word with him. I know that it is an independent organisation, but it acts on behalf of this House and of the people we represent. If the people we pay to uphold the law of the land are perverting the course of justice in what they do by undermining people who are trying to carry out their legal duty to ensure that their health and safety and that of their colleagues is paramount, there is something seriously wrong. The fact that this might have happened before 2009, with the collusion of elements of the state, should in no way let them off the hook.

Grahame Morris: My hon. Friend refers to things that happened during the miners’ strike, when there were indeed great injustices, but this blacklisting was happening only last year, during the construction for the Olympics, so it is very recent. It is current, and it is a disgrace that people who are legitimately raising concerns about health and safety are finding themselves placed on blacklists and denied employment.

David Anderson: It is an absolute disgrace, and I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As I say, the people being blacklisted are doing something that they are compelled to do by laws that we in his House passed 40 years ago. They are doing the right thing, but by doing so they are losing their employment at present and their potential for future employment.
	This morning, we heard the Shrewsbury pickets give a moving description of what happened to them. The really desperate thing behind what happened to them is the fact that the state was involved. Even today, 40 years later, the state is refusing to put documentation into the public domain for reasons of “national security”. I do not accept that. I think that what is being done in the name of “national security” is clear: people are hiding behind “national security” to protect the guilty, to protect the men and women in the shadows—the Security Service, the police and, going back to 1972, the politicians. They were clearly directing what was going on, in order to undermine the people involved and make sure that they faced a charge of conspiracy, which could have led to them doing life imprisonment. That is not something that is going to happen to the building organisations, who were using force against these people; there is no criminal sanction for them. We have the chance to do something seriously good here today, and I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that she is actually going to do something about this.

Michael Meacher: I have great respect for the Secretary of State, but I found his speech today very disappointing. He kept demanding recent evidence, but recent evidence is available if only one looks for it. Such evidence relates not only to Crossrail but to some Ministry of Defence sites and to the Olympic venue, other than in respect of Balfour Beatty. The real point is this: it is disingenuous to ask for evidence in an industry where there is a tight curtain of secrecy. If we really want the evidence, we actually have to look for it. The only way of getting this evidence is by setting up an inquiry, either a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills inquiry or a judicial inquiry, and put the relevant companies on oath to tell the truth. That is what the House is demanding of the Government today.
	Blacklisting, as many hon. Members have said, is arguably the worst human rights abuse against workers in the UK since the war. It is worse than imprisonment in that it is usually imposed on the victim without his being given any opportunity to defend himself and it lasts for an indefinite period—often decades.
	There are several issues surrounding the raid on the Consulting Association’s Droitwich offices in 2009, on which this whole debate hangs. Since it was widely suspected that blacklisting continued after the Economic League was wound up in 1993, why did it take 16 years for the authorities to act? Why was Ian Kerr, the retired special branch officer running the Consulting Association, given only a paltry £5,000 fine despite running an illegal database over 15 years that wrecked the lives of thousands of workers? Above all, why did the companies that sustained his business, and in some cases supplied the data, get off scot-free. Why did the ICO fail to take the full and necessary action that it could and should have taken?
	Under the Data Protection Act 1998, the ICO may only issue an enforcement notice, which effectively says, “Stop doing that, and only if you don’t will it be a criminal offence.” In that case, why were enforcement notices issued against only 14 of the 44 companies involved? Not only is that a small part of the total, but the list does not include some of the heaviest users—McAlpine and Skanska—for reasons that have not been revealed, despite each of those companies making some 12,000 to 13,000 inquiries in a single year. That all suggests a distinct reluctance, to put it mildly, on the part of the authorities to deal with this huge and pervasive malpractice, involving at least 3,200 workers and probably many more, with the vigour and determination it clearly demands.
	The implications go further still. First, as was stated earlier, representatives from the ICO stated at the employment tribunal hearing that some of the information held by the covert Consulting Association
	“could only have been supplied by the police or security services.”
	If that is confirmed, it reveals a conspiracy between the police, MI5 and many of the biggest building companies in the UK that is comparable to the phone hacking scandal.
	I wrote to the Home Office last year to demand a public inquiry and a full investigation to get to the bottom of the scandal, but the Minister replied, with apparently unconscious irony, that the matter should
	merely be referred to the police. There were shades of what happened in 2009, when the phone hacking scandal was referred to the police and perfunctorily dismissed.
	Secondly, David Clancy, the investigations manager at the ICO, told the Scottish Affairs Committee that the construction worker database accounted for, as he said, between “5% and 10%” of the material seen during the 2009 raid on the Consulting Association offices. On 24 October, I wrote and asked that the other 90% to 95% of the material should be located and its contents fully investigated. I was told in a reply on 30 October:
	“There was other material in the Consulting Association’s office, but we did not need to search this to secure the evidence we were looking for, and we did not do so”.
	Why not, since it was obviously likely that other material held on the site would be equally unlawful? Anyway, how did the ICO officers identify what material related to the building industry without checking all the other material to find out whether it related to construction?
	Lastly, there is the question of the adequacy of the existing legal framework. It is currently a criminal offence to compile and maintain a blacklist but not to supply information to a blacklister, to solicit information from the controller of a blacklist or to use one. It is also unlawful to be excluded or dismissed from employment because of trade union membership, but there is no right not to be blacklisted unless that leads to adverse employment consequences. These are two yawning gaps in the law, and as a result of this debate the Government must take steps to fill both those gaps if this awful malpractice is finally to be stopped.

John McDonnell: We would not have had this debate in any form—as an Opposition day debate or a Government debate—if it had not been for the rank-and-file campaign that has been waged over the years. We should salute those rank-and-file trade unionists and the Blacklist Support Group, who brought about this debate.
	There are many lessons to be learned from this, both for the Government and for Opposition Members as we go into government. I welcomed the Employment Relations Act 1999, which was the first stage in trying to outlaw blacklisting, but in 2003 I and other Members were asking: “Where are the regulations? Why aren’t we enacting them?” We were told that there was no evidence, and that was because there was almost a vow of silence in the industry. That went for employers and, I have to say, as we have seen in the ICO information, some renegade trade unionists we need to hold to account.
	The breakthrough came with the ICO raid. Members have criticised the ICO, and I have done so publicly, too, but I met the officers who carried out the raid and thanked them, at least for the breakthrough. In 2009, Mick Clapham, then Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, held a debate in the House at which a number of Members were present. I intervened, as did other hon. Members. The Government then brought forward the regulations. I convened a meeting in the House of the Blacklist Support Group, and we came together. To be frank, we thought that the regulations were too weak. The lesson we learned is that when we bring forward legislation, we need to ensure that it is effective.
	We listened to the people who would be affected by the legislation. We listened to those on the shop floor who know how employers can get round regulations and avoid legislation. I pay tribute to all of them. Let me mention a few names. I pay tribute to the Institute of Employment Rights, John Hendy, QC, Professor Keith Ewing, and Carolyn Jones, because they have advised us all the way along. More important, I thank Dave Smith—I have his file here, if anyone wants to have a look at it. It contains detailed information on virtually his every activity. I notice that he was in a few organisations, and selling the same newspapers, as I was at one point. I also thank Steve Acheson, Mick Holder, Roy Bentham, Tony O’Brien, Steve Kelly, Steve Hedley, Tony Jones and Frank Morris and many more. Let us thank them for exposing what has gone on, because it was a disgrace.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and the Scottish Affairs Committee, because if it were not for them, we would not have known about the involvement of the police and security services. I was angry and upset by the Prime Minister’s reaction when I raised the issue over a year ago, when the Leveson inquiry was set up. This is more important than any knockabout. The allegation that the police and intelligence services were involved means that we have to investigate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, the fact that we got the answer, both from the Prime Minister and in correspondence, that the issue would be referred back to the police means that it was not being taken seriously.
	I want the inquiry to look at what has happened. I want full exposure of everything that went on, because when that happens, other industries will come forward. Other trade unionists will say, “It happened to us.” I want to know the consequences, too. Like many Members here, I have met some of these people, and what happened ruined their lives—it destroyed them. They could not afford to keep a roof over their heads. Families split up. They were the consequences. I want the inquiry to look at how the law should be strengthened.
	Let us not say that the issue is historical. This is happening at the moment. I have been on the cleaners’ picket line across the city—at Schroders, John Lewis and elsewhere. People employed as cleaners join a trade union and become the trade union representative. They are then victimised—and yes, in some instances, physically assaulted; we have evidence of that. Eventually, they are sacked or have to leave. All of a sudden, coincidentally, they cannot find employment anywhere else. There are cleaners who have had to change their name to get another job; then the employer brings in the UK Border Agency, and some of them have been arrested as a result. Let us consider the Alberto Durango case: a cleaner became a trade union rep, was victimised and is now blacklisted throughout the sector. This does go on.
	There are also internal forms of blacklisting, whereby companies refuse to promote people or give them the jobs that they deserve. It happens in the civil service. I ask Members to look at the case of Finola Kelly, a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union who worked for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She took a post on a short-term basis, and then wanted to return to her existing post, but her request was refused because of her trade union activities. We know that because the court has just ruled, and she
	has been awarded £25,000 in compensation. This goes on today just because someone is a trade unionist or because they stand up on health and safety issues, or simply because they want to ensure justice and fairness at work.
	I want the inquiry to examine all those things from the past, but I also want it to open the doors and invite people to come forward with evidence. If necessary, for protective purposes, it should sit in camera with witnesses so that they can be truthful and honest without making themselves vulnerable to victimisation. As other Members have said, I want blacklisting to be a criminal offence. I want people to go down for what they have done to working-class people in this country. I want legislation to be retrospective, and I want the burden of investigation to be placed not on the blacklisted worker but on an independent investigator so that we can make sure that these crimes are exposed. My hon. Friends have mentioned the Shrewsbury pickets, and there was a press conference this morning. Forty years on, they have not had justice. I tell you now, we will not rest on this side until we secure justice and proper legislation and we protect workers once again.

Ian Murray: What we have seen today is a stark reminder that workplace practices that should have no place in modern society continue to scar national decency.
	I have to begin by responding to the Secretary of State. I thought that he got the mood of the House completely wrong in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). This debate is not supposed to be political, and when Government Members read some of the views that they expressed in Hansard they may find them somewhat regrettable.
	The word “blacklisting” is a malicious term that means to deny, ostracise or dismiss. We have heard the history from Charles II, cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), to the early 20th century, discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann); from the Economic League in 1919 to the Consulting Association, which began operating in the 1990s. Clandestine organisations have sought to conspire to gather information on individuals whom they deem to be a problem. It has to be stated that it is only through the tireless efforts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, of those individuals who suspected that something was afoot that blacklisting has been exposed. Great credit must go not only to those individuals but to the union, UCATT, and particularly Professor Keith Ewing for his report on blacklisting.
	While the Consulting Association has long since been closed down, work to help those whose lives were blighted by the blacklists must continue, and that is the driving force of the debate and the motion. This is not a minor issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has provided in-depth analysis of the issue, but it is worth reflecting on a few key facts. More than 3,000 individuals were on the blacklist that was seized by the Information Commissioner. More than 40 construction companies were not only vetting people but supplying
	information for those lists. Critically, the Information Commissioner’s investigations manager gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee in which he raised concerns that some of the information in individual files could only have come from the police and security services—I repeat: the police and security services. Perhaps the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) will wish to reflect on that following his comments about this being just a union wheeze.
	Mr Ian Kerr, who ran the Consulting Association and sadly passed away late last year, told the Scottish Affairs Committee that some of the information that he had obtained looked as if it had come from formal authorities. He said that in response to the Chair reading from a blacklist file that contained information on a worker’s van, the registration plate, and who it was formerly registered with, as well as the owner’s name, address and details. There are entries in unredacted files—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned a file that he had—and I should like to read two that I have seen, and perhaps the House will reflect on whether or not this is just about trade unions:
	“2000 April: Last viewed holding a banner supporting Barbie Lindsay at Pic-APak (…Believed to have a bricklaying ticket & Carpenter’s).”
	“1999 July 12(th): Still picketing until 0930am”
	each day before going to college
	“for safety course.”
	Those are entries in unredacted blacklist files.
	Only last week, we heard an admission from Balfour Beatty that it carried out blacklisting checks on Olympic construction sites, with allegations that in projects including those for the Ministry of Defence and Crossrail, there may have been vetting of workers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) is absolutely right: the fact that employees obtained jobs is irrelevant—it is the fact that they were checked on a blacklist in the first place, which is something that Government Members have not mentioned.
	The public projects are plentiful. The Scottish Affairs Committee heard yesterday from Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd that it may have used blacklists on Scottish building contracts such as the M74, the Quartermile development in Edinburgh and the Marie Curie cancer care centre in Glasgow. Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd said that it had not been established that anyone was denied employment as a result of those blacklisting checks, but that misses the point.
	I have written to the First Minister in Scotland to ask him to investigate the use of blacklists in relation to public construction works in Scotland. Just this morning I received information following a written question from Neil Findlay, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, asking if the Scottish Government have awarded contracts to any of the companies mentioned on the Information Commissioner’s list. The reply came back naming 14 companies, including companies involved in the new Forth crossing. I quote from the written reply from Ms Nicola Sturgeon MSP, the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Parliament, who states:
	“We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that blacklisting has been used in connection with the performance of any of these contracts.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 22 January 2013; S4W-11922.]
	That is precisely why we need a full investigation by both Governments to get to the bottom of what is happening and to determine whether any blacklisting still exists.
	It is clear, again from evidence given by Ian Kerr to the Scottish Affairs Committee, that it is not just construction workers who were blacklisted, but environmentalists, as we have heard, journalists, academics and Members of this House, past and present. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) has been blacklisted, as have my noble Friend Lord McAvoy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).
	Most shockingly—I direct this to the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins)—this is not just about the trade unions. The most shocking example of an unredacted file that I have come across is a blacklist file for Professor Charles Woolfson, who wrote the report on the health and safety analysis of the Piper Alpha tragedy. I shall read part of the file. It is from December 1995, so it was during the period of the Consulting Association. It states:
	“Author of contradictory findings on Health and Safety after Piper Alpha tragedy. Saying standards laid down since, are not being adhered to.”
	It goes on to say:
	“His activities are now being felt . . . Funding from oil industry to Glasgow University may be cut if the above activities continue”.
	That is a non-construction industry health and safety blacklist file on a very senior academic at Glasgow university who analysed one of the biggest tragedies that ever befell the oil and gas industry in this country.
	The majority of those blacklisted had no idea they were included on the secret lists and still do not know to this day. They have had their lives ruined by that, but one of the consequences that cannot be assessed is how many workers have been put off representing their colleagues on health and safety issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) mentioned that blacklisting has harmed health and safety representation.
	It may be worth looking at two other files that I came across among the Consulting Association files. One stated:
	“Migratory habits watched with interest Keeps extremely interesting company. Brought in H&S issues. Would not recommend for employment”
	because of those health and safety issues.
	The second file stated:
	“Dark haired, stocky Liverpudlian with a strong accent. Close friend of Mr Smith. Both recently seen at a Left Wing meeting. . . Girlfriend is Miss L who has been involved in several marriages of convenience.”
	These are from blacklist files that have been given to me unredacted. It is very clear what has been going on in the industry.
	Let me summarise the debate and ask three things, which I hope the Minister will respond to more positively than the Secretary of State did earlier. First, there is an urgent need for investigation into blacklisting on public sector projects. The Secretary of State challenges this, but the Scottish Affairs Committee has presented powerful new evidence that merits an investigation into the past which, if done properly, will, I think, produce evidence for the present and the future. Secondly, there is a
	desperate need for a more proactive approach by the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is vital that the ICO puts in place immediately an effective process for trying to inform individual victims of blacklisting so that they can seek redress. If the blacklisting files for hon. Members are available, they should be produced. There is no excuse for the Information Commissioner to say that they cannot be identified or the ICO does not know where they are. Thirdly, we need a review of current legal protections, of which there are many, and hon. Members have mentioned them.
	Finally, we are calling for a compensation fund to be set up by the construction companies to allow those workers who have been blacklisted to seek redress and justice through the fund. Blacklisting, as my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary said, is a national scandal. The House and Ministers need to do all they can to ensure that justice is sought and make sure that this never happens again.
	My final point is that, if the Secretary of State is going to support the motion, and not divide the House, he will be supporting a motion that asks for an immediate investigation into the issues that we have been discussing today. If he declines to hold such an investigation, he will be going against the will of the House. I commend the motion to the House.

Jo Swinson: We have had a good debate today on an absolutely appalling practice. There have been light-hearted moments when hon. Members have mused on their own blacklisting history, but there is no way in which we can make light of the impact of the practice on individuals and their families. Many hon. Members have powerfully and eloquently expressed, through stories from their constituents, how it has wrecked careers, families and lives, made it impossible for people to get a job, and created huge financial problems, health problems and emotional stress.
	We have talked about the past, and I enjoyed the history lessons from the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who talked about etymology, going back to the 1600s, and from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who talked about his grandfather’s experience. He also told the House the horrendous story of the rather dodgy guy posing as an employee on behalf of the Economic League. That showed the extent to which some people were prepared to go to get information.
	More recently, persistent suspicions and concerns were raised in the 1990s, which resulted in, among other things, the Employment Relations Act 1999. Regulations were drafted in 2003 and implemented in 2010, after the scandal of the 2009 Information Commissioner’s Office investigation. I want to dwell briefly on that investigation. It was launched after information was passed to the Information Commissioner suggesting that there had been serious breaches of data protection legislation. That demonstrates that the ICO is willing to investigate and to take action when it is provided with information and evidence, including anecdotal evidence.
	I absolutely understand the feelings that have been expressed in the House today, however. The £5,000 fine imposed on the gentleman who had been running the Consulting Association was described by the right hon.
	Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) as “paltry”. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said that he wanted to see criminal sanctions imposed on those involved in the activities. Frustration was expressed by hon. Members that no one had been brought to book for what had been happening.
	I absolutely share that frustration and that sense of injustice, but that was the regime that was being operated at the time. The £5,000 fine seems paltry, given the impact of the activities on so many thousands of people, but it was the maximum that could be imposed at the time. Calls have been made for criminal action to be taken, but those practices did not constitute a criminal offence at the time and we cannot make them a crime retrospectively. That is a convention that the House follows, with good reason, and we must abide by that principle.

Ian Lavery: The problem was not so much that the £5,000 fine was paltry; it was the fact that it was paid by a company that was carrying out blacklisting: Sir Robert McAlpine.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is fair to say that Members have also expressed concern about the level of the fine, however, and it is right that the legislation now in place allows for a fine of up to £500,000. That is far more appropriate for such a serious offence.
	I appreciate that there has been a generally good tone to the debate today, and that it has not been overly partisan, but it is simply factual to point out that if the 2003 regulations had been implemented in 2003, the victims uncovered by the investigation in 2009 could have received compensation of £5,000 or more each, and a fine of up to £500,000 could have been levied—£5,000 might not seem very much to a big construction company, but £500,000 certainly does.
	It is also worth looking at the list of 3,213 people who the Information Commission uncovered were on the Consulting Association’s blacklist. One point that has not been made today—I want to put it clearly on the record because there are people who are interested in this issue and will be following proceedings—is that anyone concerned that they might have been on the blacklist can either go to the ICO’s website, at ico.gov.uk, or call the fast-track helpline on 0303 123 1113, to find out whether they were on it.

Chuka Umunna: I have two points. First, this is not just an issue of data protection; it is an issue of human rights and employment law. Secondly, since we brought in the anti-blacklisting regulations a number of claimants have sought to bring claims but have been unable to do so successfully because they do not have employee-employer relationship. Will the Minister address my earlier point on the need to look at the law and how it applies to the self-employed, given the sheer scale of false self-employment in the construction industry?

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and will come to the points he raised. With regard to the people on the blacklist, 2,633 have got in touch with the ICO and 218 matches have been found
	so far. I hope that the publicity surrounding this debate will mean that the number will rise as more people get in touch and find out.
	Concerns have been raised about how proactive the Information Commissioner has been. I think that it is fair to say that, of all the people who will be concerned about data protection when sending out sensitive personal details, the Information Commissioner is likely to be the most careful in doing so. Sending out letters willy-nilly when people might have moved and when using an old card file is not easy. However, I understand that positive and constructive work is going on with the unions, including GMB and others, to try to ensure that people can get some firm identification and that there is some proactive contact of the people on the list. That is important and I very much encourage it to continue, but I know that it is something that is already happening.
	I was pleased to hear the contribution from the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), particularly on the Olympics, which of course were such a source of national pride. She outlined the positive impact the construction projects have had, and indeed the excellent record on safety. She was absolutely right to highlight that it was totally and utterly morally wrong for the construction companies to think that it would be in any way acceptable to check whether employees were on a blacklist. Balfour Beatty has admitted that behaviour, which I think speaks for itself. It might not have been a crime at the time, but there is no moral justification for it whatever. It is absolutely aware that such behaviour is unacceptable and now illegal. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) eloquently set out why blacklisting is also counter-productive and dangerous, particularly with regard to health and safety issues, especially in the construction industry.
	Time is short, so I will move on to the key issues about the evidence we need to look at. The Scottish Affairs Committee is taking evidence on that at the moment, and we will look carefully at the report it produces. Other elements have been mentioned, such as the Balfour Beatty and ODA issue, but the letters relate to pre-2009, so I do not think that they constitute evidence of current breaches of the blacklisting regulations. Indeed, the same is true for Crossrail, because the first contracts for tunnelling and stations were not let until December 2010. However, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) mentioned in an intervention that she might have anecdotal evidence of that, so I would encourage her to come forward with it.
	I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s earlier comment that he thinks that evidence will flow pretty quickly after this debate. I repeat that the Government are keen to see any evidence that comes forward and encourage any individuals who have evidence to bring it to us and to the ICO. I give a personal commitment that when the Select Committee reaches its conclusions I will give them my attention and ensure that any evidence that illegal blacklisting is continuing is properly investigated.

John McDonnell: rose—

Jo Swinson: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has worked on this issue consistently for many years.

John McDonnell: If the Government are not willing to accept an inquiry at the moment, I suggest that, because these matters are much broader than the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, they consider the appointment of someone independent of them and employers to whom people can go to provide evidence.

Jo Swinson: The ICO is independent of Government and employers, and it is fair to say that hon. Members would also take the view that the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee is also fairly independent—of most people. It is important to ensure that people bring forward the evidence. If anything new arises, we will be happy to make sure that it is fully investigated.
	The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the legislation. Clearly, significant protections are now in place, but there is the matter of false self-employment in the construction industry; there was a debate in Westminster Hall about that recently. That is a problem, although there are differences of view about its extent. Issues of employment law may need to be changed as a result of the evidence that many hon. Members now expect to come forward, and we are keeping all employment law under review during this Parliament. We will be happy to consider that.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, we will not oppose the motion. Blacklisting is an appalling practice, which is unacceptable and illegal. Robust penalties are in place; the law provides for unlimited fines, in particular for the breach of an enforcement notice that the Information Commissioner has put in place. I look forward to seeing any evidence that requires investigation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that in 2009 the Information Commissioner’s Office raided the Consultation Association which revealed a blacklist and files on more than 3,000 individuals which had been used by more than 40 construction companies to vet individuals and deny people employment for reasons including being a member of a trade union or having raised health and safety concerns and that extensive personal information on individuals and their families was held; recognises that the majority of individuals have still not been informed that they were on the blacklist nor given the opportunity to seek redress, despite recent confirmation that blacklisting checks took place on Olympic construction sites and allegations that the practice took place on public projects including Ministry of Defence sites, Portcullis House and Crossrail; further notes that at recent Scottish Affairs Select Committee hearings on blacklisting the Information Commissioner Investigations Manager raised concerns that there may have been collusion by police officers and security services in the compilation of blacklists; and in addition that it was also alleged at the hearings that a blacklist of environmental activists was compiled; and calls on the Government to immediately begin an investigation into the extent to which blacklisting took place and may be taking place, including on public sector projects, and to ensure that appropriate and effective sanctions are in place to tackle and prevent blacklisting.

Private Rented Sector

Nigel Evans: We now come to the motion relating to the private rented sector. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Jack Dromey: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the private rented sector’s growing role in meeting housing need; notes that there are 8.5 million people, including more than one million families with children, now renting privately; recognises there are major implications of the growth in this tenure for families and communities in Britain today; notes with concern the lack of protection afforded to tenants and landlords by the unregulated lettings market and the confusing, inconsistent fees and charges charged by letting and management agents; further notes the lack of stability, security and affordability for families and other renters; further notes the increasing number of complaints about rogue landlords and the poor standards in the sector compared with other tenures; calls on the Government to regulate residential lettings and management agents and to end the confusing, inconsistent charges regime, making fees easily understandable, upfront and comparable across agents; further calls on the Government to promote longer term tenancies where tenants want them; and finally calls on the Government to introduce a national register of landlords and empower local authorities to improve standards and deal with rogue landlords.
	The question for debate today is simple: how do we ensure that the private rented sector provides enough homes that are sufficiently stable and secure, affordable and of a decent standard? Nearly 8.5 million people, including more than 1 million families with children, now rent privately. Labour believes that the private rented sector has an important role to play in meeting housing need. As a result of the biggest housing crisis in a generation, more and more people are being locked out of home ownership and are looking to find their homes in the private rented sector.
	The housing crisis gets worse by the day. House building is down; new starts are down 9% in the past year alone to fewer than 100,000. Homelessness is up, having risen by more than a third since the general election. People struggle to get mortgages and rents are ever rising in the private rented sector.
	Most people dream of owning their own homes and we want them to realise their dream—as we did in government, when more than 1 million more families were able to buy their own homes. However, more people are finding themselves in the private rented sector, and for longer periods than at any time in years gone by.
	We want a strong and thriving private rented sector that works for all those people, but the evidence shows that too many tenants are being ripped off by unscrupulous letting agents, lack security in their homes, face ever-increasing and unpredictable rents, and are plagued by rogue landlords and poor standards. We need a private rented sector that protects tenants and landlords from being ripped off by unscrupulous letting agents who do not protect their money and are not clear about the fees that they charge.

Liz Kendall: Last year, I conducted a secret shopper survey of letting agency fees in Leicester West. One agency charged a £125 application fee, a
	£150 tenancy fee and another £100—I do not know what for—on top of a month’s rent in advance. Does my hon. Friend agree that such huge, unclear and unfair fees must be tackled?

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is to be commended on her initiative. On a wider scale, Which? undertook that same kind of mystery shopping initiative, and it demonstrated an enormous variation in charges. For example, the charges for checking a reference vary between £10 and £275. As I will argue later, the opaqueness and the scale of the fees charged is wrong, and that must change.
	We need a sector where 1 million families with children have the certainty that the rent will not rise at any time and that their children will not be forced to move school. We need a sector where there is no place for rogues who prey on vulnerable tenants and where every home is a decent home.

Debbie Abrahams: There are many areas in my constituency where I am afraid that private rented housing is not fit. A recent poll by The Guardian suggested that 84% of people wanted landlords to be required to make rented homes decent. How can we ensure that the right of people to live in decent homes with secure, value-for-money tenancies does not risk landlords exiting the market?

Jack Dromey: I will come to that precise point later.
	The sad facts are these: 37% of homes in the private rented sector do not meet decent homes standards, and we have a business model that does not work for tenants or for landlords. In no way do we want to promote flight from the private rented sector; on the contrary, we want to transform the private rented sector so that we move in future to a sector of choice that works for landlords and for tenants.

Jeremy Corbyn: A third of my constituents live in private rented accommodation. Because of a combination of rapidly rising rents and the new benefit cap, many poorer people are being forced out of my area and out of central London. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that we not only regulated the letting agents and the landlords but dealt with the need for fair rents in this sector?

Jack Dromey: Again, I will come to that point later.
	We must move progressively towards more affordable and predictable rents, while recognising that moving to longer-term tenancies is better for the landlord, who has a secure income stream, and better for the tenants, because the evidence is that they pay considerably less.

Andy Slaughter: Because of benefit caps, including housing benefit caps, almost 1,500 families in my constituency are being forced out of properties in Hammersmith and Fulham. In talking about displacement into the private sector, will my hon. Friend also address the condition of these properties? If the Government are going ahead with their misguided plan to force people out of social housing and out of London in this way, they at least have a duty to see that the condition of the properties they are moving into makes them fit for habitation.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, not least because £9 billion of housing benefit is paid to landlords in the private rented sector, so we are right to expect decent-quality accommodation in return.

Damian Collins: Do not local authorities already have powers to enforce measures against private landlords—powers that were given to them by the Housing Act 2004, which was passed by the hon. Gentleman’s party when it was in government?

Jack Dromey: As I will explain later, the use of those licensing powers has been very effective in some local authorities around the country.
	Labour is calling on the Government to act now to change the private rented sector so that it works for all: for tenants and for landlords. I read with interest an article—it appeared only today—by the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). It is entitled, “The private rented sector is blocking aspiration and isolating families”, and the very first sentence is:
	“The private rented sector is no longer fit for the people it now serves.”
	That is absolutely right. If there is a growing recognition across the House that that is the case, we welcome it.
	We cannot have two nations divided between those who own their own homes and those who rent. That is why Labour is determined to find a one nation solution to the problems associated with private renting. Everyone, whether renting or buying, should have a decent home at a price that they can afford and enjoy security in that home. Thus far, the Government have taken some welcome steps in the right direction, but they have overwhelmingly failed to rise to the challenge now posed in the private rented sector.

Meg Hillier: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest mistakes of the many that the Government made in their first few months was to cancel the register of landlords? The desire to change policy and improve the quality of private rented housing is now much more difficult, because we do not know where all those private landlords are.

Jack Dromey: A national register of landlords will not in itself solve the problems we face, but it could make a significant contribution. I will address that in greater detail later.
	Never has action been more badly needed than now. Millions of families up and down the country are living through the biggest squeeze on living standards in a generation.

Andy Sawford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jack Dromey: I want to make some progress, but I will gladly give way later.
	Families are reeling from the latest waves of energy price hikes and facing ever-greater bills to renew their
	rail season tickets, and now millions face living in the most insecure of all housing tenures—the private rented sector.

Jake Berry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for referencing my article, which is on The Spectator’s “Coffee House” and for promoting me to the position of right hon. Gentleman. I agree that we need to increase security of tenure for those in private rented houses. What specific changes referenced in my article would he make to the Housing Act 1988 to ensure further security for PRS tenants?

Jack Dromey: I will come later to the precise point of how to move to longer-term tenancies by linking them, for example, to indexed rents.

Luciana Berger: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jack Dromey: I would like to make some progress.
	On the problems facing both landlords and tenants, a landlord from Yorkshire who wrote to me about his letting agent told me that the agent planned to charge his tenants—a young couple—£400 just to renew their tenancy agreement, and planned to charge him £100. That is £500 for a 15-minute job. The landlord said that the tenants could not afford to renew and he was in danger of losing the tenancy. As he put it, this is an example
	“of the rip off charges that these agencies charge and the further pressure that this then puts on the housing market in these tough economic times.”
	This is not just about the fees that letting agents charge; many of them are entirely unregulated and provide no protections to their customers, whether they be tenants or landlords. More than 4,000 managing and letting agents are entirely unregulated. It is possible to set up a letting agency with no qualifications whatsoever. There are no requirements on their conduct or safeguards for the consumer and, unlike estate agents, there is no need to register with a redress scheme whereby awards can be made against agents for financial loss to clients. In other words, letting agents operate in the property market’s “wild west”, as the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors puts it so well.
	The RICS are not the only chartered surveyors who back the regulation of letting and management agents. The Minister for Housing tabled an amendment to a Bill in 2007 on behalf of the then Conservative Opposition, to regulate what he called
	“an industry that now handles over £12 billion of people’s money annually and yet, ironically, it is an industry that is without…redress”.
	He argued that, as a Conservative, he was
	“instinctively cautious about arguing for more regulation. However, as a chartered surveyor and a constituency Member of Parliament, I know that we need to put lettings on the same regulatory footing as sales.”––[Official Report, Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2007; c. 190-192.]
	I agree with him. Does he agree with himself, or does he agree with his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, who scrapped such proposals? Surely multiple identities are not a prerequisite for the position of Housing Minister.

Mark Prisk: That final comment was slightly laboured. I did table a probing amendment—as all good Opposition spokesmen do—but will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour Government refused to act on it?

Jack Dromey: I welcome the hon. Member’s support, which I presume will read across into supporting the Opposition motion before the House today.
	Regulating letting agents would protect tenants and landlords, and raise the reputation of an industry that Which? recently ranked second from bottom across 50 consumer markets. The Opposition hope that the Government will support the proposals and back our motion today, not least because the proposals have the support of the entire sector—the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the National Landlords Association and the British Property Federation. We also hope that the Government will recognise that the private rented sector simply does not provide the 1 million families with children, and other tenants in the sector, with the stability and security they need.

Andy Sawford: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent study by Crisis which shows that instability is a growing problem because of the Government’s cuts to housing benefit? It showed that three quarters of people are finding it much more difficult to find affordable accommodation, and there is a particular problem in Corby and east Northamptonshire—and across the country—for under-35-year-olds on the shared accommodation rate.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and there will be an increasingly serious impact on many people in our constituencies as a result of the Government’s benefit and welfare changes.

Lyn Brown: rose—

Jake Berry: rose—

Jack Dromey: I will make a bit more progress and then I will gladly give way to both hon. Members.
	On security and stability, the private rented sector gives a legal minimum of just six months before the landlord can evict a family, and they can raise the rent by any amount with two months’ notice. We recognise that there are tenants who value the flexibility offered by that form of tenure, and we believe that such flexibility should remain for those who want it. However, the greater number of families with children who find themselves living in the private rented sector, either through choice or circumstance, must be able to enjoy longer-term tenancies so that they can plan where they send their children to school.
	In 2011, families with children in the private rented sector were 11 times more likely to have to move than if they owned their own home. There are real costs of such insecurity and instability to children and young people because insecurity holds them back at school. Evidence shows a troubling gap in attainment between children from families who move home at short notice and those who do not. There are real costs to tenants who pay fees when moving home, from administration costs to deposits, often running into thousands of pounds. There are costs to the communities concerned where the bonds that tie us together are weakening.
	However, this is not just about tenants, families and communities; the system does not work for landlords either. A report by Jones Lang LaSalle, a respected estate agent services and investment management company, has shown that landlords’ returns and business models are enhanced by longer-term tenancies linked to index rents. The case for longer-term tenancies and predictable rents is clear: it offers landlords secure returns, and tenants who need it—particularly the million-plus families with children—the security they deserve.

Chris Ruane: The three great stresses are death, divorce and moving house. If children and young families are moving every six months, what type of stress does my hon. Friend think that is putting on those families and communities?

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is right. The disturbing evidence of the impact on educational attainment is associated with disturbing evidence that bad and overcrowded housing—sadly, 37% of the private sector is precisely that—has a serious impact on the GCSE results of children and therefore their lifelong earnings potential.

Mark Pawsey: On the length of tenancies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing to stop landlords and tenants agreeing longer terms? There is an institutional problem. People assume that the terms need to be six months or a year, but if we can make more people aware of the legislation, landlords and tenants should be able to agree longer terms.

Jack Dromey: I agree that there is an institutional barrier, but there is an absurdly short-termist culture in the private rented sector. In fairness, landlords face problems, including, for example, buy-to-let mortgages that insist that tenancies cannot be longer than a year. The question is how we achieve the security and predictability of affordable rents that I have described.

Jake Berry: I should take this opportunity to draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interests—I should have done so in my previous intervention. What change in the law does the hon. Gentleman propose? I accept there is a problem with the banks, which I will address in my speech, but what change in the Housing Act 1988 does he propose?

Jack Dromey: No doubt the hon. Gentleman eagerly read all the Opposition’s proposals in the policy document we published in December. We have said that we will consider—including through a dialogue with the entire sector—a combination of incentives, including, for example, tax incentives. Landlords are vociferous about the impact of—dare I say it—direct payment. On the other hand, we will consider whether we need a change by way of statute. However, our direction of travel is absolutely clear. Those 1.1 million families must have the ability to count on longer-term tenancies, which they need and want. I hope the next stage is for the Government to engage with the Opposition on how we can achieve that necessary change.

Jake Berry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his position. Does he therefore agree that no change in the law whatever is required, and that we instead need a
	change in the culture of letting? Does he also agree that it would be more responsible to talk about working with landlords to try to change that culture rather than about burdening them with new regulation?

Jack Dromey: We are working with landlords. For example, the first thing the Opposition did was work with landlords, letting agents, the British Property Federation and a range of others on the regulation of letting agents. As one, they supported the Labour party proposal for regulation. We are moving forward in dialogue, but we must send an unmistakable message on the destination we must reach. It is then a question of how best we reach it. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the destination.

Rosie Cooper: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jack Dromey: I will make further progress if I can.
	If it is true that the majority of private landlords are responsible and treat their tenants well, it is also true that too many rogue landlords undermine responsible landlords and prey on vulnerable tenants. The small but dangerous minority of rogue landlords make people’s lives a misery. They condemn their tenants to living in run-down, unsafe or overcrowded properties, and they intimidate those who speak out and threaten them with evictions.
	Despite an increase in the number of prosecutions against such landlords, the problem is getting worse. We could consider, for example, the health care assistant paying £350 a month for the pleasure of living in a shed in Newham; those found living in a walk-in freezer in Newham; or the landlord in Welwyn Hatfield who subjected his tenants to unsafe and potentially lethal living conditions, blocking the fire escapes and removing smoke detectors, and blackmailing his tenants to take the blame for the conditions in the house.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for citing two examples from Newham. In Newham, the private rented sector’s annual turnover is estimated to be approximately £300 million, and yet we had 12 men sharing a flat whose only source of water was a single sink for washing, cleaning and cooking; two people sleeping in a commercial freezer; and, worst of all, 38 people, including 16 children, living in one family-sized home. All were paying rent to a landlord who was profiting from the fact that these people felt they had nowhere else to go.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The evidence is that in excess of 40% of people in Newham might soon be living in the private rented sector. I commend Newham council and the admirable leadership by its mayor, Sir Robin Wales, for introducing a licensing scheme, initially in Little Ilford and then borough-wide, and, as a consequence of effective local enforcement action and the licensing arrangements, uncovering, exposing and tackling problems of appalling abuse.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for kindly giving way; he is being very generous with his time. He is rightly highlighting some of the terrible conditions in the private rented sector in which some of our constituents
	live. He will know that the private rented sector has some of the most energy inefficient properties. and that people who rent spend the most on their electricity and gas bills, paying for heat that escapes out of their properties rather than keeping them warm. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government did not take the opportunity, in the Energy Act 2011, to introduce a minimum efficiency standard in the private rented sector? Instead, from 2018, they are insisting that landlords must introduce a green deal package, but that will not necessarily lift the property above an F or G rating.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is right. What we need is a decent homes standard that extends across all homes for rent, public and private, and includes energy efficiency.
	A survey carried out by Shelter found that complaints against landlords increased by 27% in the past three years, rising to more than 85,000 last year. These are not minor matters: 62% of those complaints are related to serious and life-threatening hazards, such as dangerous gas and electrics, and severe damp.

Damian Collins: I, too, draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On the point I made earlier, local authorities have the power in law to take action against rogue landlords who leave their properties in such a state, including putting the property right themselves and billing the landlord for the work. Why are more councils not doing this?

Jack Dromey: They can if they know who those people are and where they live. One of the values of a national register is precisely that it is a light-touch, non-bureaucratic, simple obligation that just asks landlords what their contact details are and what premises they own.

Rosie Cooper: During the course of my casework I have come across a seriously unscrupulous agent called Lancashire Lettings Agency. It has an appalling record that is well known to Lancashire county council’s trading standards and various other agencies. The Lancashire Lettings Agency continues to operate in this era of well-intentioned voluntary arrangements. It has a history of charging people £200 to do a credit check, and my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that people fail that credit check and lose their £200. Does he agree that it is time for action to better protect the often desperate people who are searching for a home from these kinds of agencies, and that only action will make a difference?

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why the Association of Residential Letting Agents, which represents letting agents, has been one of the most vociferous advocates of letting agent regulation, supported by the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association and the British Property Federation. There is a universal agreement in the sector that the time has come to regulate letting agents, so that in the future we do not have the practices of the past that she has detailed so graphically.

Mark Pawsey: rose—

Jack Dromey: I am anxious for as many speakers as possible to contribute to the debate, so I want to start bringing my remarks to a conclusion.
	There can be no place in future for rogue landlords. The time has come to drive them out, but the problem is not simply criminal landlords. There are also a large number of amateur landlords, who—through having inherited a property, for example—are often accidental landlords. Often well-meaning, many are unaware of their rights and responsibilities when letting out a property as a home for another. A recently publicised case illustrated the severity of the issue. It involved a young mother of two, just 33 years of age, who had made her dream move to a private rented home in Cornwall. Six days later she was found dead by her young daughter, electrocuted because of a faulty heater. The electricity had not been inspected since 1981, when the house was rewired.
	Sadly, this is no surprise because, as I have said, 37% of homes in the private rented sector do not meet the decent homes standard—a greater proportion of the total stock than in any other sector. Nearly 15% of private rented homes lack minimal heat in the winter. Imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, being unable to heat your home in this weather for even minimal warmth.

Mark Pawsey: rose—

Robert Flello: rose—

Jack Dromey: I am moving to a conclusion.
	Poor housing has wider costs, including to the taxpayer. The annual cost of poor housing to our national health service is up to £2.5 billion. Labour wants a strong private rented sector—vibrant and diverse, helping to meet the nation’s housing need—but the nation does not need a sector in which landlords and tenants are hit with rip-off fees and charges by unscrupulous letting agents. The nation does not need a sector in which families do not have access to longer-term tenancies and predictable rents, leaving them feeling insecure and unable to plan their lives. The nation does not need a sector in which there are rogue landlords preying on vulnerable tenants and, in the worst cases, risking their lives. We cannot have two nations, divided between those who own their own homes and those who rent.
	We therefore call on the Government to regulate letting and management agents to ensure that tenants, landlords and the reputations of reputable agents are protected—regulation that, I stress again, is supported by the entire sector and industry. We call on the Government to end the confusing, inconsistent and opaque fees and charges imposed by letting agents and ensure transparency and comparability. We call on the Government to introduce a light-touch national register of landlords and to grant local authorities greater powers to root out and strike off rogue landlords who are found to have broken the rules, in particular by way of criminal behaviour, so assisting more councils, including leading Labour local authorities such as Newham, as we have heard, Oxford, Blackpool and now Liverpool, which are already using the powers granted to them by the last Labour Government, to tackle some of the most appalling abuse by some of the worst landlords in England.
	We call on the Government to take action to ensure that families and tenants who want longer-term tenancies are able to enjoy them, providing flexibility for those
	who want it and security for those who need it—a very different model of the private rented sector for the future; a sector of choice in the 21st century, like in many continental European countries. We call on the Government to back our motion today. I commend the motion to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Members can resume their seats. Before I call the Minister to move the amendment, I want to explain the time limits. I shall be listening very carefully to see how long the Minister takes to move his amendment, and then I shall have a better idea of what the time limit will be. However, those who wish to speak should not be thinking about more than a five-minute contribution at the beginning.

Mark Prisk: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “recognises” to the end of the Question and add:
	“the importance of a vibrant private rented sector in providing a diverse range of quality accommodation to those who do not want or currently cannot buy their own home; supports action to be taken against the small minority of rogue landlords, without burdening the whole sector with unnecessary costs; warns that excessive red tape would force up rents, reduce choice for tenants and undermine future investment; believes that the Government should work with councils to promote their wide range of existing legal powers; welcomes the Government’s action against ‘beds in sheds’ criminal landlords and steps to tackle social housing fraud; and supports the Government’s new £200 million ‘build to rent’ fund and the £10 billion in debt guarantees for investment in the long-term rental market.”.
	I very much welcome this debate, and I note your opening remarks about needing to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall do my best to ensure that all Back Benchers can participate with their own contributions. This is an important debate because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) rightly said, it is about a part of the housing market that is of growing importance and concern to Members across the House. We have tabled an amendment to the motion, because we believe it is flawed. However, some of the aspirations behind the debate are shared across the House, so I would like to try to take a constructive approach to what I hope will be a positive debate.

Mark Pawsey: The Minister and the shadow Minister will both be aware that this subject is about to come under investigation by the Select Committee, which will take evidence from many of the bodies to which the shadow Minister referred and will be coming forward with recommendations within the next two to three months. Does the Minister agree that this debate would be more appropriately held after we have heard that evidence and come forward with some proposals?

Mark Prisk: I hope the Opposition have listened to my hon. Friend’s eminently wise advice about timing, but we are where we are. I will certainly want to look at what the Select Committee has to say.
	As a Government, we recognise the growing importance of the private rented sector in meeting our constituents’ housing needs. Indeed, as we have heard, some 8 million
	people now rent privately. Home ownership, of course, remains a goal for most families, and we strongly support that ambition. Let us be clear, however, that home ownership is not for everybody. Many younger people need the flexibility that the rented sector offers. Even those who want to buy will rent while they are saving for their deposit, so a bigger private rented sector is very much here to say.

Andrew Love: Does the Minister accept that rents are rising—both in London and across the country—and that this is causing considerable difficulty for people in the private rented sector?

Mark Prisk: It is a mixed picture. I appreciate that in the hon. Gentleman’s part of north London the pressures might be different from those in the rest of the country. If we look at the official Valuation Office Agency numbers, we find that the figures are recorded as static. It is, as I say, a varied picture across the country, and we need to be alert to that important point.

Grahame Morris: The Minister points out that some people do not wish to buy and are happy to rent. Does he recognise the term “generation rent”, whereby 1 million families want to have their own home but cannot because they are trapped in a rented property?

Mark Prisk: I recognise that we have had a dysfunctional housing market, whether it be owner occupied or rented, for 15 or 20 years. Indeed, we saw the rate of house building drop substantially under the last Administration. This is something that has crossed Governments of both political persuasions; it then shows itself when some people are unable to transfer from one part of the market to the other. I take the point, but we need to recognise that this is a long-term challenge.
	I said we wanted this to be a bigger sector, but we also want it to be a better sector, providing tenants with a good choice of decent, reasonably priced accommodation. It is true that the majority of privately rented homes fit that bill today, but it is not true of all of them. As constituency Members of Parliament, I am sure that we will all have come across individual, sometimes appalling, cases involving unfair charges, poor quality accommodation or, frankly, just shoddy service. I think we can agree on the need to improve the sector; the question is how.
	As a Government, we believe that many of the current problems are a consequence of years of under-supply. Over the last 15 years, that gap between supply and demand has grown, especially after the crash of 2008. In some areas, as I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), rates will have risen because there are not enough homes to meet the demand. The quality of accommodation, let alone the service, will have suffered when landlords who face little competition rent out their properties. Expanding the supply of rented homes lies at the heart of our strategy. That is why we have taken the radical step of establishing a debt guarantee scheme of up to £10 billion specifically to encourage institutional investment in the sector. Alongside that, we are putting in place a £200 million build to rent fund to kick-start innovative projects.
	The new investment will not only boost supply but bring a different type of institutional landlord into the marketplace. This will bring much greater choice for tenants with regard to the type of property and facilities and indeed the terms of the tenancy. These institutional landlords will also bring a longer-term perspective, often of 25 or 30 years. That brings the opportunity for greater stability for tenants, and it also means that we as policy makers need to ensure that what we set is clear and consistent over that time frame.

Graham Jones: Will the Minister applaud Labour-controlled Hyndburn borough council, which has brought in an institutional investor—a pension company—to refurbish some 200 properties in the Woodnook area in Accrington? It has featured extensively in the housing press, and was on “The One Show” last night.

Mark Prisk: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wishes that he had been on “The One Show” as well. However, I am always happy to encourage and applaud innovation when we see it.

Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Prisk: I will give way briefly, but then I will continue my speech, if I may.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend rightly mentioned longer time scales. Will he inquire whether it would be possible—not today, but in future—for the Ministry of Justice and his Department to examine cases dealt with by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal involving Mr Joseph Gurvitz, the Peverel company and the Tchenguiz family businesses, and to establish what lessons can be learned from them?

Mark Prisk: I will look into those cases very carefully—I am aware of them—but I think that it would be wiser for me to take no further steps. My hon. Friend has made his point, however, and it is a good one.
	We recognise that competitive pressures alone will not eradicate bad practice among landlords or, indeed, among letting and management agents. Private tenants include many of society’s most vulnerable groups, people who may not be able to negotiate and who may not even be aware of their rights. There will always be an important role for regulation in the protection of tenants: sensible, well-balanced regulation to ensure that homes are safe to live in, tenants’ deposits are protected, and tenants are not misled when signing a lease. For that matter—to be fair, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington made this point himself—regulation is also needed to protect landlords from rogue agents, or from tenants who routinely do not pay their rent.

Graham Stringer: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Prisk: I will give way briefly, but I must press on after that.

Graham Stringer: I am grateful to the Minister. He is making a great deal of sense, but there is a third category of people who often need protection: neighbours.
	In many instances, landlords are in cahoots with appalling tenants, and use the antisocial behaviour of those tenants to drive other people out of, in particular, terraced houses, so that they can buy up the whole terrace. Does the Minister agree that, although the Housing Act 2004 and the licences that resulted from it were an advantage, local authorities need to be able to take immediate and direct action in such instances?

Mark Prisk: If the hon. Gentleman will give me some of the details of an individual case, I will double-check, but I am fairly sure that the necessary powers are already available to local authorities. However, he is right to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour. I shall not be referring to it specifically in my speech, but I believe that it causes genuine misery to decent tenants.
	I have mentioned the need for regulation, but it must be said that much of it is already in place. Let me give some examples. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 give tenants specific protection from letting agents who mislead or engage in aggressive business practices. Tower Hamlets took advantage of those regulations recently. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 protect tenants from unfair conditions, such as unfair restrictions on ways in which they can use a property. If a landlord unfairly withholds a tenant’s deposit, the tenant can already seek redress through a Government-sponsored tenancy deposit protection scheme which covers about 2.5 million tenancies. The worst abuses—harassment and illegal evictions—are already criminal offences.
	We have seen that trading standards can and will prosecute letting agents. There is a good example in West Bromwich, where a letting agent, Mr Dhuga, was taken to court by Sandwell council’s trading standards team, He had been falsely claiming that his business was a member of the Property Ombudsman scheme, and a member of this and that. Sandwell won, and as a result Mr Dhuga will have to pay more than £6,000 in fines and costs. I congratulate Sandwell on bringing the prosecution and on publicising the case in order to deter others.
	However, more can be done. Last year, for example, we became aware of a number of landlords in parts of London with tenants in outbuildings, or “beds in sheds”. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington gave an example in Newham. These are complex situations. Often, alongside the housing issue are illegal immigration, tax evasion and other criminal activities. We recognised that to root out those rogue landlords, the enforcement agencies needed to work differently and much more closely together. My predecessor developed a new, collaborative approach that can tackle complex problems on the ground. We then provided an additional £1.8 million to help local teams, particularly those in nine areas; even on one of the early raids 39 people were found to be in appalling conditions, and that has put a stop to it. Of course, the “beds in sheds” case is slightly unusual, but it has shown that we can, and should, make much better use of existing law to tackle the minority of rogue agents and landlords.
	The Opposition’s motion contains a number of ideas that were recently trailed in a speech by the Leader of the Opposition. Some of the ideas are more statements of hope than detailed policies. I was hoping, perhaps naively, that we were going to get the detail from the
	hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. We did not get that, but we should none the less explore what the Labour party is proposing. First, the hon. Gentleman has said that he wants the introduction of a national register of landlords, which he says will help local authorities to root out rogue landlords. However, he has not said what form of additional powers local authorities would have, what would happen to the existing voluntary schemes or what the costs would be.
	What is clear is that for the majority of law-abiding landlords, such a register— whether or not it includes the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who registered his interest for this debate—would mean that those who are doing the right thing and are already accredited will have a new, additional burden placed on them. When Labour, in office, last proposed a register it said that the register would cost £300 million, and that was without the extra powers that the hon. Gentleman seems to allude to. We must also bear in mind the fact that higher costs for landlords mean higher rents for tenants. In addition, many of the worst landlords—the rogues he rightly highlights—would continue to operate, under the radar. If they do not sign on, what guarantee is there that local authorities would be able to take action? Let me cite an example and then if he wants to intervene, I will be happy to let him do so.
	As we have seen in Scotland, after five years—

Debbie Abrahams: rose—

Mark Prisk: Just a moment. As we have seen in Scotland, after five years just 0.5% of licensed landlords have either had their licence revoked or have been refused. What makes the Labour party think its scheme will be any better?

Jack Dromey: The Minister is citing the impact study produced at the time we made those proposals, but he fails to talk about the benefits that would accrue to the sector, which the study asserted would be up to £1 billion.
	On the nature of the sector, the overwhelming majority of landlords are small landlords, and it would take them a matter of minutes to register who they are and the properties they own. Such a register would enable Government and local government to communicate with landlords about changes to the law or entitlements. Crucially, it would enable tenants to check that their landlord was registered and it would help local enforcement. With a licensing scheme or environmental health enforcement, if action is taken against a landlord who is found guilty of serious criminal behaviour, that landlord would no longer be registered, and rightly so.

Mark Prisk: We heard some details there, the most interesting of which was the admission that there would be a new cost of at least £300 million—all hon. Members will note that. Instead of having a national register that has the danger of being both toothless and highly expensive, we believe that enforcement can be closely focused and robustly applied using existing laws. We have heard about how local authorities have a number of powers to tackle these landlords, and I will give the hon. Gentleman a couple of examples.
	In Southwark, 12 people were crammed into a flat above a café that had no fire protection and where the cooker was at the top of the only staircase out. Southwark council has used its powers, issued an emergency prohibition order, stopped the use of the flat as residential accommodation and brought in social services. In a similar case in Epsom and Ewell, someone was getting six tenants into an unsafe property, where he did not have the appropriate arrangements. He got a £20,000 fine and rightly so. I say to the hon. Gentleman that a national register sounds easy and simple, but he baulked at the thought last time around when in government—or his colleagues did. If we are really going to crack down on the rogues, we need to use the laws we have before trying to pass new legislation.

Graham Jones: Does the Minister think that every rented property should have double-glazing? As I understand it no legislation can enforce double-glazing in properties; if they are single-glazed, that is just the way it is.

Mark Prisk: For the Minister to decide at the Dispatch Box that every home owner and letting agent should now have to have double-glazing would be very unwise, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. We want to ensure that a national register is identified as costly and, to be blunt, probably highly ineffective because the rogues will flout it, much as they do the current law. Enforcement is the key.

Ian Mearns: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Prisk: I want to move on to the second issue, because I want to ensure that we deal with the crucial question of agents.
	That second issue is the question of fees. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington has told us that he wants to end confusing or inconsistent fees and charges that can be levied by some letting and management agents. I agree. I have seen clear evidence of bad practices in the letting sector, especially in the Which? report, which identifies that there are practices that need to be ended.
	Our goal is that landlords and tenants should understand in advance the fees and charges that agents will levy. They will then be in a position to make informed decisions about whether to use their services. Frankly, that is not the case at present, and the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that. There is widespread agreement that we need to drive up standards across the lettings sector and drive out the rogues. In practice, that means that we should be making better use of the existing consumer protection legislation, which already outlaws many of the practices that affront our constituents.
	Good self-regulation is expanding across the sector. A clear majority of letting agents are now part of a self-regulatory scheme and more than 8,000 are now part of the Property Ombudsman, or TPO, scheme, ensuring that both landlords and tenants have access to redress when things go wrong. We are determined to extend that further, but the Government recognise that this is a complex area that needs careful consideration. Indeed, that was the discussion I had with the then Minister, Ian McCartney, in the debate to which the
	hon. Gentleman referred. I can tell the House that the Office of Fair Trading will shortly report on the lettings sector and I and my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), will be keen not only to read but to consider its recommendations and see what more can be done.
	Understandably, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington talked about the need to give families who rent greater security and
	“remove the barriers that stand in the way of longer term tenancies”.
	We did not quite get the admission that that might involve compulsion of landlords. I think he started to veer that way, but saw sense at the end as the practicalities are very challenging.
	I think it is right to strike a careful balance. We can all understand that families with children will want greater stability, especially if the youngsters are at school, but we also know that many people prefer shorter tenancies and do not want to commit for the long term. We need to be careful not to reduce the flexibility of the framework, given the wide and diverse range of renters in the market today. The latest evidence shows that most tenants in the sector stay for at least a year, not the six months that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Indeed, in 2010-11 more than 40% of private tenants had been in their home for more than two years, and 20% for more than five years.
	It is worth correcting the record by stating that only 9% of tenancies are terminated by the landlord. In the large majority of cases, it is the tenant who terminates the tenancy. That is not surprising if we stop and think about it for a moment, as for many tenants the key advantage of renting is that flexibility. Only a couple of weeks ago, I went to south Newham, to Canning Town, to meet young workers who rent at the new Fizzy Living scheme. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who represents that constituency, was here a moment ago but has now left. Those workers made it very clear to me that a six-month deal is exactly what they are looking for and that they do not want greater rigidity and inflexibility. We must recognise that the people who rent now are a far more diverse range than they were five, 10 or 15 years ago and that the flexibility in the system must reflect that reality.

Nick Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Prisk: No, I will not, because I have been on my feet for long enough and other Members wish to contribute.
	One of the features we would expect from the reforms I mentioned earlier is that institutional investors would positively welcome longer-term tenancies that gave them a steady income stream, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said. We are therefore working to enable the market to develop a fuller range of lease terms that match what tenants and landlords want. The key point is flexibility, not prescriptive regulation.

Nick Raynsford: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mark Prisk: No, I am going to conclude. I am sorry, but I am aware that many Members wish to speak.
	The private rented sector represents an increasingly important part of the housing market. The Government want a bigger and better rental market, and that means taking radical steps to attract new investment, and so give tenants greater choice. It means having an effective regulatory framework for the long term, and cracking down on rogue landlords and letting agents—the minority—while promoting best practice among the majority. Good progress has been made, but there is much more to do. I welcome the debate and commend the Government amendment to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. There will be a five-minute time limit on speeches to begin with, but that may be revisited so that we can get as many Members in as possible.

Chi Onwurah: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. Week after week in my constituency surgeries, and in my postbag, housing has been the No. 1 issue that constituents bring to me. That is why, last October, I launched a campaign aimed at improving the availability of affordable housing in Newcastle. It is also why, when Live theatre, a theatre in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), asked me to write a short play on the issues that my constituents face, I focused on housing. By the way, Live theatre is an excellent example of Newcastle’s long-standing support for the arts, now threatened by the Government’s unprecedented and unfair cuts.
	In the last month, housing has been displaced as the No. 1 issue, and I am sure hon. Members will be interested to know why. Is it because the Government have succeeded in building more houses, or in encouraging the private sector to do so? No. It is because of their unprecedented attack on the most vulnerable in society, and those working the hardest to improve their lot—the disabled, those on the minimum wage, and those dependent on tax credits. The Government have changed my casework load so that benefits are now the No. 1 issue that constituents bring to me. It is not that housing is less important; it is just that the Government are so busy undermining the resources of so many people that many more are forced to raise the benefits issue with me.
	Everyone needs a safe and affordable roof over their head. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has described the impact that rogue landlords are having on far too many families up and down the country. In Newcastle, 4,430 households are actively applying for housing. In the first six months of last year, 500 landlords started the process of removing tenants from their home. In that year, only 377 new homes were built. If we want to know why, we must look to the Government’s 60% cut to the budget for new and affordable homes.
	Newcastle will get £3 million from the new homes bonus, which is funded by top-slicing, through which we will lose £6.5 million, so we would be better off without the new homes bonus. As a result of the failure
	to build the homes we need, the housing shortage is growing, and the Government are responsible for pushing private rents up to a record high.

Jake Berry: It is interesting to hear the hon. Lady’s concern about the availability of social housing. Will she join me in regretting the fact that after 13 years of Labour Government, we had 250,000 fewer social houses in this country than we did at the start?

Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to highlight an effect of the buying of council houses under the right to buy, which had many positive impacts for some families but had a devastating impact on the availability of social housing in my constituency and in constituencies up and down the country. The Government are only making that worse by reducing the funding available for building new homes, and by creating an economic environment in which construction companies and developers are afraid to invest in building new homes. The Government have been widely condemned for that record.
	I believe that private sector landlords perform a useful and desirable service, and we propose to introduce legislation to support them. As the proportion of families in private rented homes increases we should examine the behaviour of private rented landlords and the service that they offer. For example, in Newcastle, the average weekly rent for council housing is £67, and for housing association housing, it is £79. However, for private rented housing, it is £120. In Newcastle, private rented homes are to be found in some of the most deprived wards. Newcastle has 14,000 private rented households—12.7% of the housing market—but 37% of them fail the decent homes standards, and 13.1% do not have central heating, against 3.9% generally.
	Labour’s motion calls on the Government to take real action to protect renters—more than 1 million families and rising, and others who live in the private rented sector. I should like to end by quoting from correspondence sent to me by a constituent when she knew that I was speaking in this debate. She said:
	“I currently work part-time due to lack of employment prospects and I just cannot afford to rent in Newcastle and still pay all the bills and transport costs. My pay is just not high enough so at 27 I am stuck living with parents, as is my sister. I am not alone in this and I fear for my generation, for whom the only solution to this problem seems to be to hope to find a partner to share the bills with.”
	That is why I support the motion.

Jake Berry: The recent census figures clearly identified the fact that we have a 69% increase in the number of people renting in the private rented sector, often for a sustained period, if not for life. Some people do that through choice, others through necessity. What we need to concentrate on—and I welcome the fact that the Opposition have instigated their second debate on housing since 2010—is how we can extend tenure for people in the private rented sector. As the face of tenancy has changed, it is now time to change tenure.
	Assured shorthold tenancy was introduced in 1988, and it was a huge step forward from the restrictive Rent Act tenancies that not only cut rent but often resulted in landlords unintentionally granting lifetime tenure. The effect was to stop landlords investing in property, but as a result of the Housing Act 1988 the private rented sector has grown as an asset class in which people feel confident to invest, and which crucially provides homes to people who desperately need them.
	We have heard that 1 million families with children live in the private rented sector. Anyone who wants their son or daughter to go to a local primary school cannot make those plans if all they have is six months’ secure tenure. Those of us who have a mortgage often fix our mortgage interest for three, four or five years because, living in uncertain times, we want certainty. We should not continue to deny that certainty to people in the private rented sector.
	The assured shorthold tenancy, which was once the hallmark of a mobile and vibrant private rented sector, is starting to block the aspirations of families, and has damaged their ability to become involved in their local community. It puts a block on their involvement in the big society.
	The assured shorthold tenancy must become more family-friendly, and we can do this without changing any law, by reading across lessons from the commercial property sector. Long leases with rent reviews and rolling break clauses have been in vogue in the commercial property sector for more than 200 years. Where we have an increasing number of families renting in the private sector, we need to read across some of the benefits seen in those longer tenancies.
	Landlords hate vacant properties—they are expensive and they attract squatters; landlords have to redecorate them; they get no rent for them; and their bank starts agitating and asking, “How are you going to pay the mortgage this month?”

Graham Jones: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s general point, but does he accept—mine is a neighbouring constituency to his, so he will understand this—that landlords are happy to board up flats in regeneration areas or areas in which they think they will benefit, and simply abandon them?

Jake Berry: The hon. Gentleman clearly identifies one of the huge failings of the housing market renewal programmes. We could have another whole debate on that, but we will not have time to cover many of the issues today.

Christopher Pincher: On the point about houses being boarded up, it is interesting that my hon. Friend is talking about leading the industry, rather than regulating it. If we make the mistake of over-regulating, will that not have the perverse effect of more houses being boarded up, reducing choice and supply for people who want long-term tenancies?

Jake Berry: I agree absolutely. If we want the private rented sector to remain vibrant and to become the tenure of choice for many people, we have to make it attractive for landlords and for tenants. That is why I commend the Government’s £200 million build to rent fund, which will change the face of landlords and see us
	move much more towards institutional investors who are interested in longer-term settlements, rather than the accidental landlord who in many cases is new to the sector, plans to sell the house and is looking for a short tenancy while he tries to do so.
	The cost of vacancies is huge. Holding a vacant property is not what professional landlords want to do, so as Jones Lang LaSalle pointed out in their recent report, landlords can benefit from a longer tenure, as well as tenants benefiting. If it is good for tenants and for landlords, why is it not happening? My personal view of the solution to the problems of the assured shorthold tenancy failing families is that we should look towards a six-year term with rent reviews, which would give landlords certainty of funding and would give tenants certainty. It would fit quite well with the number of years that young people spend in school.
	Those rent reviews could be retail prices index-related. They could just go back to market rent. Landlords would know when their rent roll was going to increase and they could factor that into the rent when they granted the lease. Also, tenants would be able to look forward to rent increases and budget for them now, rather than the landlord putting the rent up after a year to some unrealistic fee, forcing them to move. In addition, those longer-term leases would require realistic break clauses. The great benefit of the assured shorthold tenancy in its current form is that it does not trap tenants in properties. It also does not trap landlords into letting properties for longer than they want to. Any new longer-term tenancy would need realistic rolling break clauses for both the landlord and the tenant.
	We do not need to change the law to do this. We need to change people’s hearts and minds to do it. The biggest block is the funding restrictions from banks. Most buy-to-let landlords, if not all of them, in their facility agreements, which I have negotiated on behalf of landlords, will often have a preclusion from granting a tenancy over a year or two years. This is the exact opposite of the commercial property sector, where banks will consent to longer leases because those give them certainty of rent roll and increase the value of the property. Private sector houses with a longer-term lease would have more value, not less.
	There is a role—I hope the Minister will continue to lead on it—for the Government to press banks to enable landlords to grant longer tenancies. It is already happening in the Olympic park and we need to do better work to ensure that it is available to more families in my constituency.

Lucy Powell: I very much welcome this debate. The important issues that are being raised are extremely relevant to my constituency, which has large numbers of people living in the private rented sector. It also has a growing number of residents living in managed blocks, particularly in the city centre. I have held public meetings and conducted resident surveys on these important issues, and I already have a considerable case load relating to them. There are many shocking cases of bad practice by letting and managing agents in Manchester Central. In raising them in the House today, I want to shine a bright light on some practices that can only be described
	as unscrupulous and murky, and that have left many of my residents significantly out of pocket and with little protection.
	To redress the balance between tenants and owners with letting agents and rogue landlords, and between owners and residents in managed blocks and their managing agents, we need to give urgent consideration to the following measures: the regulation of letting agents and managing agents, which has already been discussed; the establishment of a national register of landlords, with local authorities including Manchester city council given the powers to improve standards; the reduction of barriers to residents getting the right to manage their own blocks; and giving organisations such as leasehold valuation tribunals—known as LVTs—real teeth, so that their decisions cannot simply be ignored.
	I will explain more about those points in a moment, but first I would like to give the House my own view on why I think the private rented sector needs further regulation. I believe that a huge market distortion is costing the taxpayer a great deal of money. We have all come across examples of letting agents charging fees and of people having to pay onerous deposits, which they rarely get back. Less publicised is the recent practice of asking potential tenants to provide a guarantor. That involves a legally binding arrangement whereby if someone fails to pay their rent, somebody else has to pay it for them. In addition, potential tenants have to go through credit checks, and we are now seeing a two-tier system in the rental market, in which people who do not pass the credit check and cannot provide a guarantor are consigned to living in very poor properties and paying hugely inflated rents. Those rents could buy a luxury home in a more desirable part of town, if those people were able to arrange that. I do not believe that those rents accurately reflect the risk involved to the landlords. Many of those tenants are also in receipt of housing benefit, so those extortionate rents are often being funded by the taxpayer. That is why the situation needs to be looked at urgently.
	The subject of managing agents is a big issue in my constituency, and it will become a growing issue in many city centres as more and more people start to live in managed blocks. The stories surrounding some, but not all, of the managing agents operating in my constituency are truly shocking. Time and again, I have come across the following problems: high charges, along with poor service and maintenance; charges being put up erroneously without warning; retrospective payment demands for work or services that were not agreed to or were poorly carried out; and long-term service contracts being awarded to associate companies of the managing agents.
	One example of that involves residents living in a riverside block in Hulme, whose management fee has doubled since 2006 and is due to go up a further 10% in April. They are powerless to prevent that. When residents and owners try to come together to exercise their right to manage, they often face high barriers. In some of the bigger blocks, it is not always possible to find and mobilise the required ratio of owners, because of the high number of absentee landlords. Even when the majority of owners can be mobilised, and the right to manage has been won, the legal barriers are considerable. When the residents and owners of No. 1 Deansgate in the city centre won the right to manage last year, the managing agent and freeholder were told that they had
	no right of appeal, yet, with the help of the legal firm that they hired, they were able to get an appeal agreed by the higher tribunal. The residents and owners will continue to fight for their right to manage, but the legal process has already cost them thousands of pounds and is likely to cost them £10,000 more.
	The challenges do not end when the right to manage has been won. Owners in the Little Alex block in Moss Side manage their block, but the freeholder takes out the buildings insurance with an associated company, in what can only be described as a dubious arrangement. The insurance includes a number of elements that the owners do not want. The leasehold valuation tribunal has determined in favour of the residents, yet the freeholder is continuing to charge them, and it seems the LVT has no teeth whatever. That is why we need further regulation—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I call George Hollingbery.

George Hollingbery: In the interests of allowing as many colleagues as possible to contribute to the debate, I hope to keep my remarks very brief—five minutes is simply not long enough to develop a substantial argument. We know that the private letting market is extremely important in this country. Indeed, it is of rising importance. The Communities and Local Government Committee published in May 2012 our report “Financing of new housing supply”, for which we took a great deal of evidence on the barriers to investment in the private letting market, particularly from institutional investors. That evidence was very important.
	Straightforwardly, regulation, and certainly uncertainty about it, can lead to difficulties in encouraging meaningful institutional investment in new supply. That is particularly important, because I believe firmly, as I think do shadow Front Benchers and Government Front Benchers, that large institutional investment in private rented housing is a really interesting way forward for providing better and higher-standard accommodation with long lets to more people across the country. We should therefore do whatever we can to try to make that happen.
	Raising finance is difficult at the moment. I want to quote from a report produced for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by Professor Michael Ball of Reading university in November 2010:
	“Regulations and the threat of more regulation put off investors. This is generally due to the costs of compliance. Rogues ignore rules, so it has to be demonstrated that the total costs of compliance by all landlords are outweighed by improvement in the quality offer by the few. The paradox may arise where regulations deter good quality investors and the resultant accommodation shortages generate substantial financial incentives for those prepared to flout the rules.”
	We need to be careful to understand that a well-meaning regulation can easily put off potential institutional investors, because their investment might lead to much better regulated and longer-term private rents in the sector. I want the House to be aware that there is plenty of academic evidence available showing that regulation can be a barrier to raising finance simply because of the uncertainty it generates for long-term investors.
	The Government have already invested considerable sums in that area. We have already talked about the £200 million fund to provide equity finance for builders and developers for this interesting nascent market. Of course, the £10 billion debt guarantee scheme should allow more of those long-term investments to be made. The Housing Minister told The Spectator last week:
	“What we need to do is attract and encourage new players to the market, while at the same time avoiding the excessive regulation that would force up rents and reduce choice for tenants.”
	That must be right. The Select Committee agreed and its report’s first recommendation was for a more flexible approach:
	“We encourage local authorities to consider taking a flexible approach to affordable housing requirements in planning obligations on a case-by-case basis, where this will help to stimulate build-to-let investment and will not be to the detriment of the wider housing needs of the area.”
	Ultimately, if we need to provide more purpose-built private housing for rent, what we need, ironically, is less regulation, not more. That will produce housing owned by large-scale investors who will have a vested interest in the long-term viability of their property portfolios and who are much more likely to operate in an ethical and transparent way. I refer hon. Members to Grainger in my constituency, which is putting together exactly that sort of investment and development. I believe that is the way forward. I believe that well-meaning regulation could be dangerous in that regard. I absolutely understand the desire to regulate letting agents more. That is essential, makes good sense and we should do more of it, but we need to be very careful when we impose regulation on the wider marketplace.

Graham Jones: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a little disappointing that Conservative Ministers and the Secretary of State have now left this crucial debate.
	I wish to speak in favour of the motion and address standards, value for money, the security offered by the private rented sector and the effect that that is having on our local housing market in Haslingden and Hyndburn. The private rented sector is very large in Hyndburn and the statistics provided by my local authority on standards are of great concern. Across the borough, 49.2% of privately rented homes do not meet the decent homes standard and 29.6% have category 1 hazards. In some wards, 35% of properties are rented out and in some streets and neighbourhoods the figure is about 90%.

Craig Whittaker: It is interesting to note that the local authority has the figures on the number of homes that are not up to the required standard. What, therefore, is it doing with the 100-plus regulation powers that it already has to put that right?

Graham Jones: That question is easy to answer. My local authority is the third worst hit in terms of revenue grant and it is doing everything it possibly can. If the Government take resources away, they have to accept that it becomes difficult for local authorities to meet their obligations. That is the position in which the local authority finds itself.
	I return to the scale of the problem. In the ward of Spring Hill, 71.6 % of houses do not meet the decent homes standard; in contrast, only 17.2% of social housing in the ward does not. In Central ward, 73.6% of houses do not meet the decent homes standard, compared with 32.1% in the social rented sector. That is a damning indictment of the state of the private rented sector in my constituency and the behaviour of some who let those properties. I should say briefly that the housing health and safety rating system is not fit for purpose and is due for an upgrade.
	What do Haslingden and Hyndburn constituents get for the privilege of renting a home? Last year, national TV crews came to Hyndburn to see the sorry state of the sector. One house that TV crews visited in my neighbourhood had asbestos, single wooden windows, damp, mould and electrical sockets hanging off the wall with live electrics exposed at a low level. A young mother and a toddler were housed there as there was nowhere else better. The house had innumerable category 1 and 2 hazards, as is common throughout the constituency.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, the Government should tackle the dangers of electrical safety, not just by regulating electrical safety certificates but by the mandatory installation of residual-current devices in every rented property.
	Nationally, the last English housing survey revealed that the number of people who agreed with the statement “the landlord does not bother with repairs” was twice as high in the private rented sector as in the social rented sector. In Haslingden and Hyndburn, the figure is far higher. At another property in my neighbourhood, I saw a questionable gas fire, which was checked by a gas fitter. It was condemned immediately and removed. For 12 months, the landlord had been asked to look into it. Shockingly, the property was rented by a parent with a two-year-old and four-year-old.
	Such stories reflect the chronic state of the private rented sector in Haslingden and Hyndburn. There is a huge problem, not just with rogue landlords, but absent and long-distance ones. Crucially, there are also amateur landlords who know nothing about property maintenance and are simply looking for a quick profit. I ask the Minister to consider this point. Landlords need guidance, and a national register would assist landlords, tenants, neighbours and the local authority to work together.
	Recently, a woman suffering from exactly the problems that the Leader of the Opposition has recently identified came into my surgery. She is a single mother with three children. She had been forced to rent a three-bedroom former council house now owned privately through the right to buy. She had been the victim of domestic abuse and her partner had abandoned her and her three children. Her rent is £600 a month, while the rent at the Hyndburn Homes property next door is just £300. The average price of a Hyndburn Homes property is about £64 a week, yet a private rented property costs £108 a week—68% higher.
	Then there is the scandal of top-up, which has not been mentioned, whereby landlords raise rents way above housing benefit levels and push families and young, innocent children into the worst poverty imaginable. The lady I mentioned received £425 in housing benefit, so the Department for Work and Pensions was paying £125 more than on the property next door, but that still left her with a £175 shortfall per month that she had to
	find from the other benefits that she received. Her children were going hungry and she had to be clothed with clothes from the charity shop just to keep a roof over their heads. Moreover, the house was in a terrible state of repair because it had been bought under the right to buy, and the landlord had shown no interest in making good.
	When I contacted schools in my local area, they confirmed a rise in the number of poorly clothed and hungry children turning up for school in the morning. My surgery is filled with people desperate for decent housing, all of whom are housed in the private rented sector, while the local authority has a very long waiting list for housing association houses. A recent survey highlighted that Hyndburn has the second highest number in England of people living on the breadline.
	I would like to speak for much longer, but time is running out and I will have to conclude my remarks.

George Hollingbery: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I take the forthcoming point of order, I am afraid that in the interests of trying to accommodate the level of interest I am going to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches, with immediate effect, from five minutes to four minutes. In that way, I hope to be able to get everybody in if people are helpful.

George Hollingbery: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House’s business. In my speech, I omitted to alert the House to the details of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I apologise to the House for doing so and now alert it appropriately.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and the House will be too.

Damian Collins: In the short time available to me, I want to focus on an area of the private rented sector that gives me particular cause for concern. As we have heard, many people’s experience of the private rented sector will be positive. They will have good landlords with an interest in maintaining good properties because they want to supply the market and to have competitive rents and full properties. That is what a lot of people, institutions and organisations entering the sector will want. As we all know, however, the poorer people on lower incomes or in receipt of housing benefit, who are at the bottom end of the private rented sector, tend to get the worst deal. Those are the sorts of people we see in our surgeries, and Members across the House will be familiar with the situation.
	I am particularly angered by the behaviour of some landlords maintaining properties in areas where they know there is a shortage of social housing and a high demand for capacity. They will own a lot of cheap, older properties that need a lot of work done on them, and they are guaranteed an almost constant flow of tenants. Some will be enjoying payments of rent and housing benefit directly from the local authority, giving them a controlled and largely guaranteed income. They will know that in most cases tenants cannot afford to
	move. If the tenants are unhappy, even though they are renting in the private sector, they do not have the freedom that people with more means have in deciding to end the agreement and move somewhere else. People trapped in that situation will not have the means to move and are stuck there.
	Although, as I said earlier, local authorities have the power to take action against landlords who are maintaining properties at a low level that is causing risk of harm to their tenants, those landlords know that by the time the property is inspected by the local authority and a request for change is made, to which the landlord may be resistant, months can go by before anything is done, if it is done at all. The tenants are stuck and the landlords can largely do what they want. That is a disgrace, particularly where landlords are in receipt of housing benefit.

Jake Berry: Is not my hon. Friend making a good argument for a massive expansion of selective licensing? Local authorities already have the power to use selective licensing in areas of low demand, and in my constituency that has been used with great success. Is that a good way of regulating landlords?

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, local authorities do already have the power to do that. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, the London borough of Newham has introduced a licensing scheme across its entire area. This should not be a matter of national policy or a compulsory requirement but something that local authorities should have the discretion to enforce at their will. My concern, though, is that the enforcement of a licensing regime might put rents up, because the landlord will pass the cost on to their tenants, and might restrict the number of properties available in the market. Those concerns were also certainly raised in the consultation that Newham itself ran on the introduction of its licensing scheme.
	I wonder whether there should be incentives for landlords to be more responsible in the way in which they manage and maintain their properties. Direct payments are probably a topic for debate on another day, but should not a landlord qualify for direct payments of housing benefits that give them a guaranteed income stream only if they maintain their properties at a certain level?

Mark Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that a longer period of tenancy with greater security of income would be the exact incentive that landlords need to improve their properties?

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We should certainly consider doing that with regard to the social sector and housing benefits. I do not think that local authorities and the Government should be in the business of paying housing benefit to landlords who do not maintain their properties at a decent standard. We should not be doing that. I think that the guaranteed flow of income and the massive supply of people who are looking for accommodation give us the power to negotiate with the market and the private sector in an important way.
	I would also say that private landlords who wish to rent their properties out to tenants on housing benefits should be part of an accredited scheme, run by one of the organisations that represent the housing sector, be it the National Landlords Association or another body. There should be an incentive for people to sign up voluntarily to those sorts of schemes.
	The Private Sector Tenants’ Forum, which was consulted by the London borough of Newham, said that its tenants
	“had some concerns—above all, that landlords should not be discouraged from letting properties and that licensing costs for landlords should not increase tenants’ rent levels. They also wondered if the regulations could be enforced effectively in practice.”
	That is my one concern about the national register of landlords proposed by the Opposition. It is fine in principle but, on the ground, the local authority needs to have the resources to enforce the agreements and check the properties. I suspect that the reason why hon. Members from all parties have raised the concerns that they have about the state of properties in the private rented sector is that local authorities are not making those checks or enforcing measures against the private sector landlords. Perhaps the authority does not have the resources to do so. It would seem from what the London borough of Newham has said that it hopes that the licensing scheme will pay for some sort of enforcement, but I doubt whether that would be possible.

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Collins: I want to conclude my remarks so that other Members can speak.
	We should consider some sort of incentive scheme so that private sector landlords who are in receipt of state money and benefits have to maintain their homes to a decent standard in order to qualify for those benefits. That would give us some control at the bottom end of the market and, I hope, the ability to influence positively the accommodation and standard of living of many of the poorest people in our society.

Lilian Greenwood: The private rented sector plays an increasingly important role both in Nottingham and across the country. More families are being forced into the private rented sector even though they would like to buy their own home. They just cannot get a foot on the housing ladder. Many other families would like the quality, stability, security and affordability offered by social landlords, including housing associations.
	Our city has a well-respected arm’s length management organisation, Nottingham City Homes, but the properties are simply not available. At present, 10,000 households—more than in other city authorities in the east midlands—are waiting for an NCH property, and far too few new affordable homes are being built.
	Of course, many people choose the flexibility that private renting can offer, and with a student population of more than 50,000—about one in eight city residents— Nottingham’s private rented sector is vital to the success of our city. Although both universities provide halls of residence on campus and there has been an expansion of purpose-built student accommodation, many students want or need to live in the private rented sector. The
	rapid expansion of the city’s student population, which has increased by 36% in 10 years, has presented challenges locally.
	I have spoken about the issues arising from high concentrations of homes in multiple occupation in Nottingham. Some long-term residents began to feel that their local neighbourhoods were changed beyond recognition, but I cannot talk about that right now because of the time.
	The Labour Government recognised those issues and took action to help, giving local authorities the power to control the development of HMOs and working towards the introduction of a national register of landlords. Thanks to the determined efforts of local councillors, local residents and groups such as the Nottingham action group on HMOs, those provisions were applied effectively in the city.
	The incoming coalition Government took away those powers and scrapped plans for a national register of landlords. I want to explain, albeit briefly, why that was the wrong decision and why action is needed now to protect tenants. I will focus on the needs and experiences of my student constituents, but many of the issues apply equally to Nottingham’s other private rented sector tenants.
	In many cases, those renting flats and houses have positive experiences and responsible and professional landlords. In a minority of cases, however, the picture is very different and one of poor landlords and unscrupulous letting agents who cause misery not only for their tenants, but often for their neighbours too as properties and gardens on the street are neglected and fall into disrepair.
	The university of Nottingham student union’s accommodation and community officer, Sian Green, recently submitted evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s consultation on the private rented sector. Her evidence on the quality of private rented housing is clear:
	“It is the experience of our students that there is no consistent quality when it comes to Private Rented Housing. For as many students who will find good quality, well-maintained housing, there are as many, if not more, that will struggle with poor property standards. In addition to this, where there is a poor standard of property, students will also struggle to get their landlords or letting agents to respond to requests for repairs or concerns about problems with their accommodation.”
	She also notes that casework at the student union’s student advice centre has increased by 151% in the last year.
	Just last week I heard concerns from Ben, a constituent of mine, as he gave an all-too-familiar story about grime and dirt in the house, damp affecting health, a leaking roof, vermin, a broken fire alarm and intimidation by his landlord—I wish I could say more about it. Unfortunately, Ben is right and not only are there real problems for students, but the Government have failed to act. That is precisely why Nottingham student union and the National Union of Students are in line with our position on seeking better accreditation and a proper register of landlords, as called for in the motion.

Mark Pawsey: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. As I said in an intervention, I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition have
	initiated a debate on this topic at this time, just as the Communities and Local Government Committee is about to start its inquiry. Would it not make more sense to hold such a debate immediately after the Committee produces its report?
	The private rented sector plays a significant role in housing provision, and for many people renting privately has become a preferred choice as they look for the flexibility that the sector provides. After owner occupation and social renting, the private sector has become an accepted and effective third form of occupying a home. As Shelter points out, more than 1 million families with children are now renting privately, and many are renting by choice.
	In any discussion of the private rented sector it is important to acknowledge how the Conservative Government rescued it. Between 1915 and 1979 owner occupation of social housing increased dramatically, while private rented accommodation fell from 75% of all properties in 1918 to as low as 8% by the 1980s. Only the Housing Act 1988, which introduced radical change under the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ended the slide of the private rented sector and abolished rent controls.

Jake Berry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Housing Act 1988—a seminal piece of legislation—clarifies the fact that reducing regulation can improve the sector? It is not always about increasing regulation.

Mark Pawsey: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Until 1988, anybody who owned or had inherited private rented accommodation under the fair rent regime was anxious to sell immediately on taking vacant possession because the returns available in that sector simply did not justify investment in it.
	Some serious issues face the private rented sector, including an appropriate concern about rogue landlords—the House has heard accounts of tenants living in substandard accommodation. There are various claims about the extent of rogue landlords, and I hope that when the Communities and Local Government Committee takes evidence it will be able to identify the true extent of the problem. Tenants should feel confident when they enter into an agreement that their landlord will stick to his responsibilities. The question before the House is whether regulation is the best route to deal with rogue landlords, and indeed rogue letting agents. The Association of Residential Letting Agents states:
	“With the majority of letting agents operating legitimate, professional practices, one could argue that it is the responsibility of consumers”—
	and, in this case, landlords, who in the main are professional people—
	“to make an informed decision about which agents they use”.
	I agree on that point. I am not convinced the Government should get involved.
	Interestingly, in June 2010, the Department for Communities and Local Government stated, as my hon. Friend has, that:
	“In the past over-regulation drove landlords out of the rental market.”
	Over-regulation would reduce the number of properties to rent and would not help tenants or landlords.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the landlords who are happy to flout the current law on what is considered to be a decent standard of home will not be concerned about new regulations, because they will flout those too?

Mark Pawsey: Absolutely. Other hon. Members have made the point that councils have the powers to deal with rogue landlords. We need councils to use them. The Department for Communities and Local Government states:
	“Councils already have powers to require landlords to take action to rectify hazards in their property and where landlords resist, to make and charge for improvements, and to prohibit use of the affected parts of the property.”
	The question for the House is what the Government should do to encourage local authorities to make greater use of their existing powers. I hope the Minister refers to that.
	Hon. Members have mentioned letting terms. Many tenants and landlords believe their agreements should be for either six or 12 months, but as we have discussed, there is no reason why they should not be longer. A longer-term agreement is often in the interests of both tenant and landlord. Many investors in residential property are in it for the long term. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) on the terms of buy-to-let mortgages, but not all properties are subject to those. One piece of evidence that the Communities and Local Government Committee hopes to uncover is the proportion of accommodation in the sector that is subject to such mortgages and the proportion that is owned outright by investors.
	Tenants often want the greater security of a longer period. I would like the situation that exists in commercial property whereby people promote and advertise the properties available on the basis of the length of the letting term. Some landlords will always want to let for a short term, but those properties should be identified as such.
	I look forward to the Committee’s work in talking to representatives of landlords, tenants, letting agents and councils, so that it can better understand what is happening in the sector, what is working well and what is working badly, the current state of the market, the different perspectives, and how the sector can be improved. However, I subscribe to the premise that regulation is unlikely to be the solution to all our problems. I will therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Andrew Gwynne: Two boroughs cover my constituency—Stockport and Tameside. There are currently 7,500 people on the waiting list for Stockport Homes and around 8,000 on the list for Tameside New Charter Housing Trust. Social rented housing in the two local authorities is therefore in acute short supply. Last week, I learned from a case I was dealing with that only one property suitable for a family with children was available to bid for in the whole of Tameside.
	The only option for such families is to consider renting in the private sector. At the outset, I should say that there are some very good private landlords—they
	invest in their properties, repairs are done quickly and the properties are well managed through responsible agents. I do not wish to tar all landlords with the same brush, but my experience is that many landlords do not fall into that category.
	I shall give examples. One of the first pieces of casework I took up back in 2005 concerned some pretty basic housing repairs. I visited my constituent in Denton. He lived in an ex-council semi-detached property built in the 1940s. The home next door was still in the public sector and had just undergone a complete re-fit—new roof, new windows, new doors, bathroom, kitchen and central heating—under the Labour Government’s decent homes standard. Sadly, the house I was looking at was not a complete mirror image. It had the original 1940s metal window frames. It was damp. It had a 1960s kitchen that was falling to pieces. There was mould and the house was cold and draughty. Worse, the landlord was based in the Irish Republic and did not want to do any repairs. To add salt to the wound, the rent on the property was almost £100 a month more than the rent on the property next door. I thought then, and I believe now, that if it is right to have the decent homes standard in the public sector, it is right to have a decent homes standard for all homes.
	I want to fast forward from seven and a half years ago to just two weeks ago, and talk briefly about the experience of my cousin Alison, who has given me permission to talk about her experience. She has fallen on hard times. She is a proud, clever and talented individual, and a brilliant mother of two young boys. After a bad bout of mental illness caused by her near death while giving birth and the subsequent break-up of her marriage, she is trying to move back to Tameside where she grew up.
	Alison has been bidding without success for New Charter Housing Trust properties, so my wife and I went with her to a number of letting agents in Denton two Saturdays ago. Out came the property portfolio—some lovely houses—and then the discussion about her circumstances. She will probably need to rely on some housing benefit for a brief period while she settles in, sorts out her health needs and hopefully regains employment. With those two words, “Housing benefit”, the portfolios closed for a large number of those properties, even ex-council houses. To put it politely, what was left were shabby, crumbling, damp, draughty terraces with no money invested in them, and which are not fit for habitation.
	Alison is what the Prime Minister would class as a striver—benefits are a stop-gap. This is a mum of two who, before her illness, worked every hour God sent and who even after her illness worked some hours in her local Sure Start centre in Wythenshawe and paid her mortgage. Sadly, her experience is what it is like in the real world. Thankfully, she has found some suitable housing, but it was no easy task.
	On this side of the House, we want to ensure that the letting and management market better serves tenants and landlords. That is why I will be supporting our motion tonight.

John Pugh: I am grateful to the Opposition for securing this important debate, and for the measured way their Front-Bench team have introduced
	it. They have pointed to a serious and old problem. Fundamentally, it consists of a shortage of the right sort of decent, affordable property, with rogue landlords exploiting the situation, and an insecurity of tenure existing in places where it should not. I used the phrase “old problem” advisedly, because if anybody knows anything about the Communities and Local Government Select Committee in the previous Parliament, they will know that, under Phyllis Starkey, who was then the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, it concentrated fervently on housing issues. The Committee was not uncritical of Government policy and initiatives, whether talking about decent homes, empty homes, HMO regulation or pathfinders. It was rarely the case that initiatives were judged by the Committee to be an unqualified success.
	We must all acknowledge the reality that all recent Governments have been slow to respond to clear demographic trends: immigration; the break-up or fracture of households, which is another pressure on households that we do not often talk about; the slow build rate, which I think the Labour party would own up to and which was not as good as Labour would have liked it to be; and the effective and deliberate termination of the role of councils in the running and provision of houses. The former Member for Sedgefield, Tony Blair, was repeatedly reminded of that deficiency at Prime Minister’s questions.
	Essentially, we are left in a situation where most parties are reconciled to the idea that the housing market itself must provide—the state has, as it were, tactically withdrawn. This is simply about how to regulate, or, alternatively, how to stimulate the market. This Government like to stimulate, and fear to regulate. In fact, I think there is a rule that before introducing one regulation, they have to get rid of two. That is a nice slogan, but ultimately a slightly mad policy. If the Government do not stop regulating and the rule is applied consistently over time, the logical consequence will be that there will be only one regulation left, and then the rule itself will be become inapplicable.
	The amendment warns us of “excessive red tape”. To say that excessive red tape is a bad thing is something of a tautology. I do not know whether anybody actually backs excessive red tape, although it is possible that there are some red tape fetishists out there—“Fifty Shades of Red” or whatever. However, the amendment is making a legitimate point about exercising caution. Landlords are a various bunch. Some MPs are landlords and have MPs as tenants. Some landlords are quite orthodox business men. Some people turn their pension into a flat. Some landlords are institutions, such as the Oxford colleges, the Church of England and so on; and some, as we have all acknowledged, are frankly rogues.
	In preparing for this debate, I reminded myself that two of my daughters are accidental landlords, one failing to sell her house in Cardiff when moving north and another failing to sell her flat in London when moving to Cheshire—she is now both a landlord and a tenant. There is therefore an issue about how we regulate such a mixed bag and a legitimate fear that in doing so we might create something that is more costly than we intend or that actually reduces the number of landlords we have—that is, the supply. Therefore, we talk about landlords and how we regulate them, but it depends on who they are and what the local market looks like.
	In my constituency, the landlords are pretty good—they have formed themselves into almost a self-policing body—but we have rogue landlords, particularly in the HMO sector. But there are some landlords—one major landlord in my area—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s time is up. I am saddened by that, as I think the House will be too.

Ian Mearns: In moving the amendment, the Minister referred to a dysfunctional housing market in some areas for 15 to 20 years. When I was seeking re-election as a councillor in 1987, my election leaflet called for regulation of the private sector in the housing market, because in my first term of office, from 1983 to 1987, we came across a range of antisocial behaviours that emanated mainly from tenants in private rented houses in central Gateshead.
	In other parts of Tyneside we saw scenarios building up where properties were bought for cash at auction and immediately let to tenants who the landlords knew would cause trouble in the neighbourhood, bringing down the value of surrounding properties, which would then be brought up for cash at auction, and so on. What was behind that? It was the fact that money could be laundered by buying up houses and then getting a legitimate income stream by letting to tenants who would be in receipt of housing benefit.

Jake Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Mearns: I will not. I am going to make progress.
	Ill-gotten gains were being used to buy up properties in order to secure a long-term income stream, paid for by the taxpayer. For some of those private landlords, there is no doubt that the whole idea behind the ploy was that the surrounding properties would also fall prey, and so on, leading to a spiral of decline.
	Of the three sorts of rented properties that we normally talk about, the private rented sector is now in receipt of the greatest amount of housing benefit, with £9.2 billion going into that sector. When so much hard-earned public money—£9.2 billion of hard-gotten taxpayers’ money—now goes into the private rented sector, why would we not want to regulate the recipients of it? There are, I am afraid, many rogue landlords all around the country, but housing markets in different parts of the country are very different. By regulating letting agents and management agents, we will be able to protect tenants, reputable landlords and the reputations of trustworthy agents. A national register of landlords would allow local authorities to strike off rogue landlords and stop them receiving public money in the shape of housing benefit for properties that are not well managed, but often cold, damp and dangerous for the tenants.
	Frankly, it is a national scandal that public money is going into the pockets of rogue landlords, subsiding them through housing benefit. Although the Government might disagree, I ask them to reconsider, given that regulation of the private rented sector is a two-way stream, with safeguards for landlords and tenants, bringing the support of the law and local regulatory authorities to the aid of both, in what can sometimes be, frankly, murky legal territory.
	I note that one Government Member suggested perhaps withholding benefits from landlords who do not maintain their properties, but how would that work in practice without a register? Quite often, the same landlords will have properties in many different locations, and if they are adopting such practices in one place, we can virtually guarantee that the same thing is happening in many others. There are many things in this market that need to be cleaned up, but we should absolutely be doing so, because it is being subsidised by the public purse.

Craig Whittaker: I declare my interest in this topic, as reported in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I support the need to take action against letting agents, and I support action taken against rogue landlords, as I support action against any rogue operating in any sector—whether it be builders, window salesmen, car salesmen or any rogue at all. The answer, however, is not further to regulate the whole sector because of what Shelter calls
	“the small but dangerous minority of rogue landlords who are making people’s lives a misery”,
	but to enforce what is already in place.
	There are currently more than 100 pieces of legislation and regulation, containing about 400 individual measures affecting the private rented sector. Figures from Shelter show that only 487 landlords in England were prosecuted last year from a cohort of about 1.2 million. That is low. What is needed is support for local authorities better to enforce existing regulation to root out more effectively the criminal landlords who blight the lives of tenants.

Jake Berry: Is it not an example of how regulation will not work that the tenancy deposit scheme can be avoided by rogue landlords simply by taking a rent deposit rather than a breakage deposit? Is that not evidence that regulation will always be avoided by criminals?

Craig Whittaker: That is exactly right. In some cases, landlords do not take deposits at all, as I shall explain later.
	What is the point of having more legislation and regulation when local authorities are not enforcing what is already in place? Let me point out that a recent English Housing Survey found that 85% of private tenants were either very or fairly satisfied with their landlords, which compares with 81% for social housing tenants.
	As an MP, I meet my local landlords association and associations nearby, so I can say that if a stable rental contract that gave renters a five-year term came into force, we would go back to the bad old days of the ’70s and ’80s when landlords advertising their properties would plainly put on the adverts “No DSS”. [Interruption]. It is true. I wonder whether the Opposition Members who proposed this motion ever went out to speak to landlords. If they did, they would find that landlords who rent particularly to the local housing allowance sector often cannot get a bond, let alone four weeks’ rent up front. They have to wait for the local housing allowance payment to come to the tenant before they
	get paid, and unless they go and collect the rent on the day the tenants are paid, they often find their rents are short.

Mark Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if there is too much regulation, landlords will simply exit the sector?

Craig Whittaker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I pointed out earlier, we will see landlords refusing to rent to various groups within the sector.
	Last week, I spoke to one of my local landlords who has more than 450 homes that he rents out in West Yorkshire. He told me—a story I hear time and again at this time of year—that 40% of his local housing allowance tenants paid short in December and a further 20% did not pay the rent at all, and not because the rents were above the local housing allowance threshold. In one story he told me, the door was answered by the tenant’s young daughter, who was keen to show him the vast array of computers and designer presents she had received for Christmas. He was then told by the tenant, however, that there was not enough money to pay last month’s rent, and he was asked if she could pay it back over the course of this year.
	This is not a rogue landlord, but one who maintains all his properties to a high standard—he is actually a very good landlord. What on earth are these landlords going to do when universal credit is introduced later in the year, and the ability to get local housing allowance paid direct when the tenant is in arrears is removed? That is not an issue for today, but I can see those “No DSS” signs coming back as we speak. This will not tackle the problem of rogue landlords, but, sadly, will probably increase their number.
	Many vulnerable tenants do not need five-year leases. If we want to do something to help them, let us introduce a support package of budgetary controls and training as part of the wider picture. One of the reasons—and I do mean “one” of the reasons—for the amount of churn in the sector that relies on local housing allowance is the fact that those people simply do not pay their rent, or find themselves in a financial mess.
	The motion does not address the real issues, including the issue of rogue landlords. If anything, the measures that it proposes would increase the number of such landlords and push more tenants into their hands. The answer is to help, and force, local authorities to enact and enforce the 100-plus pieces of legislation that already exist, as well as helping vulnerable tenants with such matters as budgetary control.

Frank Dobson: I believe that we have a shortage of housing and that rents are too high. Being a simple soul, it seems to me that the answers to those problems are fairly clear: we need to build more housing, and we need to reduce rents. Let me say to any Government Members who think we do not need to reduce rents that in my constituency that the average weekly rent of a two-bedroom flat in the private sector is £440 and the average household income is £635 a week, and let me tell those who are unable to do the calculation that the rent paid by such households constitutes 70% of their income. We cannot
	allow that to go on, especially as rents are continuing to rise. One of the benefits of introducing the regulation and reduction of exorbitant rents is that it would save a lot of money for the taxpayer, who is currently finding £9 billion for private sector landlords to pocket. People who receive housing benefit do not keep the money in their handbags and wallets; it goes to the landlords.
	We also need to build more housing. People ask where the money will come from. Well, the money saved on housing benefit for private landlords could be used to build more homes, but my own view is that, because the ridiculous process of pouring quantitative easing into the banks has benefited no one except the banks themselves and has not stimulated the economy, the money ought to be invested in housing. I am told that the Bank of England and other banks around the world would find it unacceptable if it did not go to a bank, and it therefore seems to me that the obvious answer is to establish a housing bank to finance housing. I hope that our Front Benchers will seriously consider that proposition.
	The situation in my constituency is the worst that I can remember—and I have been battling away in the constituency for more than 40 years, first as a human being, then as a councillor and then as an MP. I have tried to look after people and ensure that they obtained decent housing that they could afford. That housing is not available now, and although the proposals in the motion would certainly ease the pain, I do not think that they would cure the problem. We need a much more extreme approach.
	Let me give an example from my constituency. A woman came to my advice surgery. She lives in what was a council flat that was bought under the right to buy and then bought to let. She lives there with her nine-year-old daughter, who is doing well at primary school, and her 19-year-old son, who is doing well in a serious apprenticeship. She is paying £485 a week in rent to live in what was a council flat. Instead of increasing her housing benefit in order to help her to stay there and give her some security for her family, the Government have reduced it by £160. People in my constituency are being priced out of the places where they have grown up, where they live, and where they provide vital services for the rest of us.

Nick Raynsford: May I, at the outset, draw attention to my interest, as declared in the register?
	This debate has covered a number of issues on which I would like to have contributed my thoughts. In particular, I would like to have spoken about how to support and encourage the further expansion of the private rented sector while raising standards and tackling poor conditions; how to safeguard tenants from excessively high rents and exploitation; how to avoid private rented housing being forced into inappropriate roles that it is not well placed to fulfil; and the case for regulating letting agents. All those points were discussed well by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), but there is no time for me to comment on them and so I shall focus on just two issues, which have been touched on in the debate and which merit a little further consideration.
	The first issue is the case for longer-term tenancies, which has been articulated by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Such tenancies are entirely compatible with the growing confidence in the private rented sector. I well understand how in the 1990s landlords who were nervous about the prospect of regulation favoured the idea of shorthold tenancies as the preferred option. In fact—this is an important message—when the Housing Act 1988 was passed the shorthold tenancy was not the default tenancy; the assured tenancy was the default. That was changed in the 1990s by the then Government. One measure that could send a clear message about our interest, across the House, in encouraging more longer-term tenancies without imposing an unreasonable regulation would be to return to the 1988 Act formulation, making the assured tenancy the default and leaving the shorthold tenancy as an option. I can see no objection to that. I tried to intervene when the Minister was discussing this issue, and I hope that now he has heard the case put to him in more detail than I could have in an intervention he will give it serious consideration, because this message could command support across the House. It would make a real change and would encourage more longer-term tenancies.
	The second issue I wish to touch on is the case for more institutional investment. Again, we all agree on that, but I would like to add a caveat. The studies undertaken by the academics who have done the best work in this field—I think in particular of Christine Whitehead at Cambridge university and Kathleen Scanlon at the London School of Economics—show that in European countries with well-developed private rented sectors institutional landlords are not the majority. In Germany, which is often cited as the best example, 60% of private landlords are small landlords. In France, 95% of private lettings are done by one or two people only, and not by institutions. So although it is sensible to encourage more institutional investment, we should not be blind to the fact that the norm across Europe is that the small landlord plays a rather important role, and we should not put all our eggs into the basket of institutional investment. There is a real merit in institutional investment—there is the natural common interest of the landlord having a long-term view and welcoming longer-term tenancies because that guarantees rent continuity. Those are all good reasons for encouraging institutional investment, but we should not treat it as the panacea. We must have a more diverse private rented sector which continues to attract investment by smaller landlords.

David Lammy: May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
	At the turn of the 20th century, the image of private sector housing tattooed into our collective memories was of the slums brought to life in “Oliver Twist”:
	“rooms so small, so filthy, so confined, that the air would seem too tainted even for the dirt and squalor…dirt-besmeared walls and decaying foundations”.
	That was Dickens’ portrait of Jacob’s Island in Bermondsey, and just a few years ago I spoke to two pensioners in Bermondsey about those conditions. We did something about that situation. The Addison Act of 1919 changed those circumstances. Slums were cleared
	and, for the first time, the Government took an active role in providing housing at low rents to working people.
	In the decades after the second world war, my father was able to arrive in this country and get a mortgage for £6,000 on a house in Dongola road in Tottenham, whereas my aunt got a brand new flat in a new housing development called the Broadwater Farm estate. By the 1980s, the explosion of cheap credit meant mortgages were affordable and many now had the opportunity to buy their house for the first time. That was not perfection by any means, but at least there was a choice. For those who wanted affordable accommodation with a lengthy and secure tenure, council houses were available; for those who wanted their own home, mortgages were available and house prices were reasonable; and for those who wanted the flexibility, there was an affordable private rented sector.
	The situation did not last. Right to buy was not accompanied by funds to replace and the Housing Act 1988 created assured shorthold tenancies that allowed landlords the power to raise rent by however much they wanted or evict tenants with only two months’ notice. People were crowded out of renting socially and they have now been priced out of home ownership. In place of those options, the private rented sector has boomed. From a low of just 1.7 million at the start of the 1990s, the number of households in the private rented sector has more than doubled, but most are there through circumstance, not choice. They enter the sector holding none of the cards. The result is that people are conned, exploited and, frankly, ripped off.
	As the sector booms, it is time to talk about how tenants can share in the proceeds of that growth rather than being the victims of it. Right now the system is rigged against the very people it is supposed to serve. Every new tenant enters a sector where demand soars but supply remains stagnant. The consequence is an explosion in rents, even during a recession. Ten years ago, private rents averaged a fifth of weekly earnings; today they are creeping towards a third. Those living in the capital are finding that rent alone claims more than half of their pay, and that is taking its toll. As Shelter has pointed out, 7.8 million people are struggling to pay their rent each month.
	What do we need to do? Clearly, we need some solutions. The state should not be subsidising slum landlords who force their tenants to live in Dickensian squalor. As recommended by the Rugg review in 2008, we need a compulsory register of landlords, such as that being pioneered in Newham, which would at least create the minimum means by which the worst landlords would no longer be able to operate. That is why we need a new statutory code of practice for letting agents that ends the practice of extortionate fees. There need to be tax incentives for responsible landlords and we need to encourage longer tenancies with the option to index any rent increases to inflation, to ensure both tenant and landlord can plan financially.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am delighted that we are having this debate, and very sad that it is so short, meaning that so many colleagues can speak only for a short time.
	This is an enormous issue. As I pointed out in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), a third of my constituents now live in private rented accommodation. I keep a tally at my advice bureau every week of the highest rent I have come across in comparison with the rent that would have been paid if the house had remained a council property. Last week, I came across the following example. Flat A was a council tenancy, had been fully refurbished to the decent homes standard and was £100 a week. The tenancy was secure, the family was happy—so was everybody—and the children were doing well. The flat next door was £440 a week and repairs were not done. The ex-council tenant lives in Southend or wherever else and can apparently live comfortably off the income from one flat bought under right to buy. What is going on in the rented housing sector is disgusting and obscene.

Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: Unfortunately, I will not give way to anyone as it will prevent others from speaking. We need an understanding of the urgency of regulation of the private rented sector to ensure that those people who go into it as tenants can be assured of getting their deposit back, which they often do not, of not being charged excessive search fees by the agencies, of not being harassed out of the property, and of its being maintained. Local authorities have some powers in that regard but we need far more powers for them to intervene and ensure that conditions are decent.
	The experience in my constituency and that of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), is that there is a large amount of funny money going into London. People are buying up large quantities of property, mainly in west London, and that has a knock-on effect on the whole private sector across London, leading to excessive rent rises. My constituents cannot afford to remain living in the area where their children go to school, or where they work, and they cannot afford to stay there if members of their family are unemployed but have caring duties relating to the wider family, so there is enormous population turnover. Having short-term tenancies with very high rents corrodes community and family life, and is fundamentally very damaging for all of us in the long run.
	The local authority faces huge housing demands; it has 13,000 families on the priority list, and the council cannot possibly house them in its housing stock of 30,000 homes, so it has to house them in the private sector. On some occasions, there is a rent deposit scheme, but that is quite rare. On most occasions, the council is forced to house people in the private sector, wherever it can find homes. Very few people are rehoused in the borough; the local authority’s responsibilities are discharged all across London. Some London boroughs discharge those responsibilities to places well outside London.
	Unless we build more council houses, regulate the private sector and guarantee that all our children will have somewhere decent, safe and warm to live, study and grow up, we pay the price—in ill health, in under-achievement in schools, in family break-up, and in crime. It is up to us to do something about that. We
	should start with regulation, because there will always be some private sector involvement, but we should then move on, particularly through investment in council housing, which will help us to solve this problem.

Alex Cunningham: This is a much-edited speech, I am afraid.
	Not everyone is getting the sort of home that they need. They are routinely pushed into conditions that no one in the Chamber would accept for themselves or a member of their family. Demand for housing continues to outstrip supply, and even in a relatively small local authority area such as Stockton-on-Tees, more and more families are being pushed into the private sector. I am proud that Stockton-on-Tees borough council has taken the initiative in implementing a number of measures to deal with problems and make the private rented sector work more fairly.
	We are unique in Stockton-on-Tees in benefiting from a landlord’s toolkit, which provides a range of measures to help raise standards in the sector. It is there to support landlords and tenants, and provide enforcement where it is needed, in order to improve and maintain property, management standards and behaviour. The council now licenses houses in multiple occupation and uses the housing health and safety rating system to assess properties when a complaint about living conditions is received from a tenant. There has also been the introduction of a landlord accreditation scheme, a landlord liaison scheme and tenant referencing. There are also landlord forums, training and newsletters. These measures are helping to improve life for private sector tenants on the ground.
	Our council is also doing its bit to help increase housing supply. It works with registered providers and a social enterprise to bring outmoded properties back into use. That provides apprenticeships and training opportunities for young people, as well as quality, well-managed housing for tenants, many of whom are, or were until recently, homeless. Our area has also benefited from a willingness on the part of the council to identify and bring to account rogue landlords who wilfully neglect their responsibility. When a property fails to perform its most basic function—keeping its inhabitants warm, safe and dry—there are inevitable implications for public health.
	I urge the Minister to take a close look at what Stockton-on-Tees borough council is doing, encourage other parts of the country to follow its lead in developing innovative policies to deal with private rented sector problems as they emerge, and think about ways to promote good practice and ideas that could aid councils in tackling the problems that we know are rife in the private rented sector.
	There are thousands of good landlords all over the country, many of whom operate in my constituency. They provide a good service at a reasonable price, respond to tenant need, and do not, for the most part, act unreasonably. However, there is also the other type of landlord. One term for them is absent landlords; I can think of some other terms, but I do not think that I should use them in the House. They buy up properties such as those in Port Clarence in my constituency for a few thousand pounds—one went for £12,000 recently—and
	let them out to whoever will come along with the necessary cash, or benefits, more likely. Some do not care about maintenance, and some, I have been told, have not even visited the area, so they are hardly likely to engage to improve their properties and the lives of the people who live in them. Others fail to manage tenants properly, which results in tenants causing absolute havoc in their neighbourhood with antisocial behaviour.
	The Government should encourage local authorities to use the powers given to them by the Labour Government to tackle some of the appalling abuse that we see all too often, I hope that they will step away from any notion that would reduce those powers. They can build on what the Labour Government did in the past by taking up the suggestions in the motion, and I hope that those suggestions will be supported.

Grahame Morris: I should like to declare an interest—not a financial one as a lobbyist for private landlords but as secretary of the all-party group for housing in the north. In that regard, I was rather disappointed that the Minister and his colleagues could not attend an excellent event held in the Commons last night. I should like to use the little time that I have to take up some of the points that were made then.
	There is a chronic shortage of decent, affordable housing in the UK. In the past two years, the number of housing starts has fallen. Indeed, it has been lower in every quarter since Labour left office, as indeed has been the number of housing completions. Last night, an excellent report was published. There is at least one good thing to come out of Sheffield Hallam—the university, and the centre for regional economic and social research, which produced a terrific report on the economic impact of housing organisations in the north. It has quantified the benefits of the social housing sector. My hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) have highlighted the difference in costs between the social rented sector and the private rented sector.
	That has been brought home to me forcefully by the case of a constituent who was worried about losing her home in April because of a loss of housing benefit as a result of what has been referred to as the bedroom tax. She had an income from jobseeker’s allowance of £72 a week, but she had to find an extra £9.60. The alternative suggested to her was to move out of her two-bedroom housing association property, which she had occupied for a number of years, into a one-bedroom private sector property—in my area, such properties just do not exist. Bizarrely, the cost of the one-bedroom private sector rental—at least the allowance paid by the local authority—was more than the rental of the two-bedroom housing association property.
	I am trying to make a point about opportunity cost and how we might address the problem of a shortage of affordable housing to rent by investing in the social rented sector through housing association homes and council housing. There is a virtuous circle: in the four regions that make up the north, those organisations
	directly employ 41,000 people, and support 75,000 jobs—more than the automotive and call centre sectors put together. They make a huge contribution to the north-east economy: here is an engine for economic growth that offers a real opportunity for the Government not only to address the housing shortage and the housing crisis but to create employment and economic activity.
	Building new social housing should be a priority. Demand has increased year on year, as has the need for investment in our communities and local economies. That would offer a huge opportunity to provide apprenticeships offering practical skills to young people. If the Government will not do anything to help “generation rent”, I sincerely hope and believe that the Opposition and the next Labour Government will.

Chris Williamson: We have had a well-informed and excellent debate this afternoon, with contributions from 17 hon. Members. We have heard about issues ranging from the rent differential between the private rented sector and the social housing sector to the impact on the housing benefit bill; about poor, sometimes shocking standards in the private rented sector; and we have heard descriptions of the activities of rogue landlords and the exploitative activities of some of these fly-by-night management and letting agencies.
	Members have cited the inadequate supply of council housing, and we also heard about the innovative action that some local authorities are taking to address the problems that we heard about this afternoon. Some Members on both sides of the House talked about the need for family-friendly tenancies and the need for institutional investment. We heard about the European model of the private rented sector and how that might have some application in this country. Some Members spoke about the need for more regulation; others spoke about the need for less regulation. Everybody on both sides of the Chamber agreed that there is a desperate need to raise standards.
	Different solutions would, I guess, be proposed from one side of the Chamber or the other, but it is clear to me that there is a consensus across the Chamber that we are living through the worst housing crisis in a generation. The English housing survey suggests that two thirds of all newly formed households now enter the private rented sector. Projections for the next 10 to 15 years suggest that more than a million young people will be permanently locked out of home ownership, and more than a quarter of low to middle-income families will be living in private rented accommodation that they can ill afford.
	A recent YouGov survey suggests that 1.4 million people are falling behind on their rent or mortgage payments, 44% are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage, more than a million have had to resort to payday loans, 2.8 million have used an unauthorised overdraft, and 10% of those have to do so every month. To cap it all, families struggling to make ends meet are having their tax credits slashed and their housing benefits squeezed.
	The dysfunctional mortgage market is making matters worse. Home ownership is now beyond large numbers of people who would previously have aspired to own their own home. This is contributing to the surge in the number of private tenancies, which is the highest it has been for 50 years or more. Most of those people are paying considerably more than they would if they were buying their accommodation with a mortgage. It is not surprising, therefore, that private rented sector rents have risen twice as fast as wages in the past 10 years. That explains that phenomenon.
	Many are living in substandard housing, as we heard during the debate. That is why we need a one nation housing strategy for the private rented sector—a one nation housing strategy that recognises this shift in tenure patterns, a one nation housing strategy that does not leave millions of our fellow citizens subject to insecurity and exploitation, and a one nation housing strategy that tackles the unscrupulous landlords who make so many people’s lives a misery. Of course many landlords are perfectly reputable, but there are a significant minority of rogue landlords who should be driven out of the market. The motion before the House tonight would go some way to achieving that goal.
	With 37% of the private rented sector falling below the decent homes standard, the time for action is now. With 4,000 unregulated lettings agencies up and down the country, a laissez-faire approach is unacceptable. A citizens advice bureau survey found that 73% of tenants are dissatisfied with their lettings agency. I therefore do not agree with the Housing Minister when he suggested that self-regulation was the way forward. Meanwhile, rent levels in the private rented sector are soaring and the housing benefit bill is ballooning. Recent research by the House of Commons Library has shown that more than £9 billion or 40% of the £22.7 billion spent on housing benefit each year goes to private landlords. Council housing accounts for £5.6 billion and housing associations £7.9 billion.
	When the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), was Housing Minister in 1991, he said:
	“Housing benefit will underpin market rents—we have made that absolutely clear. If people cannot afford to pay that market rent, housing benefit will take the strain.”—[Official Report, 30 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 940.]
	Housing benefit certainly has taken the strain in the intervening years, but at what cost? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to create a Mary Shelley monster when he made that public policy pronouncement. Is it now fair to penalise the victims of that policy failure by imposing restrictions on tenants? It is hardly their fault that private sector rents have gone through the roof.
	We need a one nation housing strategy, not some kind of abstract housing policy that has unintended consequences. We need a one nation housing strategy to right a social wrong that is leaving millions of our citizens in a precarious situation, including more than 1 million families with children. The introduction of a national register of private landlords would be a good start, and empowering local councils to drive up standards would be welcomed by tenants and landlords alike.
	Good landlords have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the proposals in our motion. Promoting long-term tenancies and predictable rents would provide reassurance for tenants and certainty for landlords. It would involve a simple step that would have a significant impact. Tenants would be shielded from irresponsible operators, and decent landlords and agents would avoid being tarred with the same brush as the unscrupulous minority. By introducing consistency in fees and charges across the sector, we would ensure that everybody knew where they stood from the outset. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, we simply cannot have two nations—those who own their homes and those who rent. That is why I urge Members to oppose the amendment and to support our motion.

Don Foster: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I was initially surprised to hear that the Opposition were planning a debate on housing. After all, their housing record during 13 years in government has not given them much to boast about. That said, however, when I saw the issues raised in the motion, I had to acknowledge that they would be of interest to Members on both sides of the House and, more importantly, to many of our constituents. After all, the private rented sector is of growing importance and provides accommodation for around 17% of all households in England—that figure has nearly doubled in the past 20 years—and they represent 3.6 million households.
	The majority of the private rented sector is operating well and the vast majority of tenants are satisfied, but, as we have heard in the debate, there are some real problems that must be addressed. They include problems involving rogue landlords, poor quality accommodation and exploitative letting agents charging exorbitant fees. We have also heard concerns about the length of tenancies and the need to increase supply. We need to find solutions to those problems, and today’s debate has been extremely helpful in considering ways forward. I welcome the helpful and constructive tone of the debate. In fact, we could say that it has been a one nation debate.
	I apologise that I shall not have time to mention all Members who have spoken. The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) both made it clear that there are many very good landlords and letting agents. They also pointed out, however, as did right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, that there are too many who are not. The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) raised concerns about the right to manage and about leasehold valuation tribunals. Those are really leasehold issues, and she will be delighted to know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has today written to a number of people in the industry to address those very issues. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) talked about the need to review the housing health and safety rating system, and we would be interested to hear from him on that. If he would like to come and talk to me afterwards, I will discuss double glazing with him as well. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also mentioned a
	particularly expensive level of rent, and I am sure that he will draw his constituents’ attention to the opportunities to use the rent assessment committee.
	My hon. Friends raised a number of equally important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) talked about the barriers to investment in the private rented sector and drew attention to concerns about the impact of new regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who is an active member of the Communities and Local Government Committee, reminded us of the Committee’s work in that area. Like him, we all look forward to the outcome of that work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) talked about red tape fetishism and, becoming rather distracted by planning to write his new book, “Fifty Shades of Red”, ran out of time, but his concern about regulation reminds us that not all regulation is bad. It was therefore wrong for the Opposition’s motion to describe the lettings sector as “unregulated”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) pointed out, there is a large amount of regulation in this area. Surely the key should be to find ways to make better use of existing powers and regulation before seeking to introduce new regulation, a point that was drawn to our attention firmly by Sir Adrian Montague in his review of the private rented sector.
	As I have said, there are areas of concern, such as rogue landlords, which many right hon. and hon. Members mentioned. I remind the House that local authorities have a large number of wide-ranging powers that can be used to bring tough and effective enforcement against bad landlords. We reminded councils of those powers recently in our publication, “Dealing with rogue landlords”. Some councils are doing exemplary work, with enforcement teams, proactive inspections, the development of clear and proper compliant reporting procedures and landlord accreditation schemes, such as the excellent one in Portsmouth. Of course, under the Housing Act 2004, in certain circumstances councils can also introduce their own licensing schemes, as has been mentioned. Really good examples include Sunderland, Leeds, Hartlepool, Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Sedgefield and many others.
	Another thing that has not been mentioned so far in the debate is the need to send a clear signal to rogue landlords that poor practice will not be tolerated. That is why the caps on the level of fines for offences under the 2004 Act will shortly be lifted. We believe that the Opposition’s proposal for a national register of landlords, in the way they have described it, would be too prescriptive, expensive and over-centralised. It is worth reminding ourselves that Labour’s own impact assessment stated that a full licensing scheme would be onerous, difficult to enforce and would cost £300 million. Surely we should be looking at local solutions to local problems and developing the regulations that already exist.
	Concerns were also expressed about letting agents. Although it is true that there are already many pieces of legislation that provide protection for tenants, that is an area where we could be looking further. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) will know that the Office of Fair Trading is looking at that as we speak, and the Government will be listening to the recommendations not only from the OFT, but from the Select Committee.
	This has been a useful debate on an important topic. The Government want a bigger, better private rented sector—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 225, Noes 292.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 284, Noes 220.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises the importance of a vibrant private rented sector in providing a diverse range of quality accommodation to those who do not want or currently cannot buy their own home; supports action to be taken against the small minority of rogue landlords, without burdening the whole sector with unnecessary costs; warns that excessive red tape would force up rents, reduce choice for tenants and undermine future investment; believes that the Government should work with councils to promote their wide range of existing legal powers; welcomes the Government’s action against “beds in sheds” criminal landlords and steps to tackle social housing fraud; and supports the Government’s new £200 million “build to rent” fund and the £10 billion in debt guarantees for investment in the long-term rental market.

ACCESS TO POSTGRADUATE STUDY (OXFORD UNIVERSITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate, which will enable me to raise the case of my constituent, Mr Damien Shannon, who has been refused a place at St Hugh’s college, Oxford as he is unable to meet its financial requirements. It will also allow me to make some more general points about the growing importance of postgraduate education for individuals, the economy and social mobility.
	Mr Shannon lives in Salford. He is an intelligent and thoughtful young man. He has sought to pursue his education in the past few years despite his difficult financial circumstances. Damien obtained a good degree in history and politics through the Open university, and then wished to undertake a one-year MSc course. He applied to St Hugh’s college, Oxford, and was absolutely delighted when he was offered a place for October 2012. However, that place was contingent on him being able to fulfil the financial requirements of the college, as well as meeting its standards, and this was where the difficulties began.
	Damien has no financial support from his family. The fees for the one-year taught MSc course were £10,000, and he managed to secure a career development loan from the Co-operative bank to meet that requirement. As the Minister knows, there is no student loan scheme for post-graduate education, a subject I will return to later when I have specific questions for him to answer.
	Damien had passed the academic test and had raised the funds to pay for his fees. Then came the fatal blow. The college required a guarantee that Damien had immediate access to £13,000, which the college deemed necessary to meet his living costs during his period of study. First, it said his rent would be £516.66 a month, which it claimed was the cost of renting a reasonable sized room in shared accommodation at market rates in the private rental market. That figure bears no correlation to Oxford city council’s local housing allowance figure, which is currently £342.98 for a room in shared accommodation. However, the £516.66 figure is enforced regardless of the rent an applicant actually has to pay.
	Secondly, the college stipulated that an applicant should have £56.73 a week for food. That is almost the entire sum that someone under 25 on jobseeker’s allowance receives per week to meet all their non-rental living costs. The college figure is based on the requirement to eat a certain number of meals in college. Now, Damien has told me that he is perfectly confident that he could cater for less, and indeed does so now, but he was never given the chance to do so.

David Lammy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this matter to the House. Does she not agree that the basis of our democracy must be that it is for students to determine how much they have got to survive on once they get on to the course? It is not for the university to determine that. If the university is concerned, it should be reaching out to help students from poorer backgrounds, not putting them off and hindering them in this way.

Hazel Blears: I agree entirely. It is the responsibility of students to be aware of their own personal affairs. In this case, we are talking about postgraduate students—some of the most intelligent people in the country. If they are not capable of sorting out what they need to pay for their rent and their food, I do not see that it is the place of a college to interfere to that degree in private life. I also believe that it is for universities to support people in these circumstances. I have made inquiries at Oxford and at other universities. Of all the scholarships that are available, none are means-tested, so they are not available or targeted at people from poorer backgrounds. That needs to change. I had a conversation with Oxford university this afternoon and there might be a bit of progress, which I will tell the Minister about in due course.
	The third issue—if hon. Members thought it could not get any worse, it does—is that the college requires £1,050 per annum for utilities and £2,700 for clothes, books and socialising. Oxford university has one of three copyright libraries in the UK—it contains a copy of every book that has ever been published—so I am not sure why there is a need for money to buy books. As for clothes and socialising—this relates to the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) raised—how is it right for the college to dictate such matters to postgraduate students, who are some of the brightest people in the country?
	Finally—this does concern me—the college refuses to allow income from part-time earnings to fill the gap. It says that postgraduate study at Oxford is too demanding, yet it employs its own graduates as junior deans, junior welfare officers and teaching assistants. How can it be that other part-time work—perhaps a couple of hours in a pub in the evening or a Saturday morning job—would detract from someone concentrating on their studies, while formal work as a teaching assistant, junior dean or welfare officer does not? I do not believe that doing a couple of hours’ part-time work would be devastating to the demanding programme of study at Oxford.
	I spoke yesterday to Universities UK, which told me that other universities allow part-time work, as many students would otherwise find it impossible to pursue postgraduate studies. I understand that Oxford’s own figures, in its most recent report analysing postgraduate studies, show that some 47% of applicants who were offered places on academic merit have been unable to take up those offers because of their inability to raise the necessary funds. Therefore, nearly half of all those students are unable to take the next steps in their education simply because they do not have enough money in the bank.
	I contacted Oxford and St Hugh’s college to listen to their views before this debate. I have not received a written response, despite sending a lengthy letter, but this afternoon I had a rather disappointing conversation with the pro-vice-chancellor for education at Oxford. In seeking to justify the financial guarantee that is required, she told me that other universities have a greater drop-out rate, as students discover that they are unable to manage financially. To some extent, by requiring a guarantee that nearly half the applicants are unable to meet, Oxford effectively reduces its exposure to risk. Its retention figures are bound to be better because half the students, recognising that they are unable to meet the financial requirements, do not take up their courses and are therefore not at risk of dropping out.

Julian Lewis: Does the right hon. Lady know whether the problem therefore lies with this particular Oxford college or whether it extends over all Oxford colleges?

Hazel Blears: The case that my constituent has brought to my attention relates to his application to St Hugh’s college, but this afternoon I talked generally to the pro-vice-chancellor for education, who talked to me about the whole of the Oxford system, so as far as I am aware the problem applies across the piece.
	The pro-vice-chancellor also explained to me that poorer students who could not raise the funds could go off to work for a couple of years—she gave me an example—and save up the money for their courses. So, those with £21,000 up front can come straight away and get on their postgraduate courses—and possibly have access to better jobs and the wage premium that is available—but those who do not have £21,000 have to go away to work and save up. That seems to be unfair and discriminatory on the grounds of income.
	The pro-vice-chancellor also told me that Oxford had raised £30 million in order to be able to support graduate students. I am absolutely delighted about that, but again, so far none of that money has been directed towards students from poorer backgrounds, which is absolutely essential. She obviously wants a national system of postgraduate student loans, but I have said clearly that, in the absence of a national system, it is not good enough for universities simply to wait for that to happen. If the university has £30 million, it is vital that some of it should be targeted towards people in circumstances such as those faced by my constituent Mr Shannon. I am therefore pleased that the pro-vice-chancellor has said that the university will look at what it can do with the significant sums that it has been able to raise.
	I do not want for one moment to put off people from poorer backgrounds from applying to our best universities. I am a trustee of the Social Mobility Foundation, which does excellent work on encouraging young people to aim high—indeed, to aim for the very best. I want our young people to be at the best institutions. I know that work has been done over the last few years to try to widen access to undergraduate degrees, but postgraduate qualifications are becoming increasingly expected if people are to access to some of our professions. That is why I am so exercised about this situation.
	That brings me to the wider impact on social mobility. Alan Milburn, who has been appointed as the independent reviewer of social mobility, produced a report in October last year, in which he said:
	“Increasingly, some jobs require a postgraduate qualification, and it is one of the routes into numerous professions such as journalism, accountancy and academia. The lifetime earnings of an individual who has completed a master’s degree are 9% higher than someone who has a bachelor’s degree.”
	That provides clear evidence of the wage premium. He continued:
	“The current system is not working. While foreign students are flocking to join our graduate courses, our own students are not joining them in sufficient numbers. In particular, those without independent means struggle to pay their course fees and to cover their living expenses while studying. That is bad both for national income and for social mobility, as those who are unable to pay are excluded…Lack of access to postgraduate study is in danger of becoming a social mobility time bomb.”
	He recommends that we need better data. I think everyone is agreed on that; we do not have sufficient data on the background and socio-economic position of postgraduate students. He also recommends very clearly that
	“the Government should consider introducing a loan system for funding postgraduate students. To start this process, the Government should commission an independent report, building on the principles of the Browne Review, to come up with proposals”
	for such a loan system.
	Alan Milburn is not the only one to raise these issues, as we recently had an independent inquiry by the Higher Education Commission. It looked closely at the issue and took evidence from many witnesses. It says:
	“We need to improve access…Postgraduate education is ‘the new frontier of widening participation’—with prospective students currently barred from study if they cannot afford fees or access sufficient credit. There are a number of fields and professions where postgraduate qualifications are becoming a de facto requirement for employment.”
	It also backed the idea of student loans, and asked for a taskforce to report by December this year. This debate is becoming much more widespread than ever before. There are a number of people getting first degrees, but in order to distinguish themselves, it is almost a requirement nowadays to have a postgraduate qualification.
	I have some specific questions for the Minister. First, I ask him to take a view, and I have no idea whether he will on this subject, and say whether he agrees that the financial guarantee relating to living costs—not to tuition costs, because those have to be paid—and in particular the bar imposed by the university on taking earnings from part-time work into account is unfair and discriminates against those without access to significant funds. If he does agree, what action can he take to try to challenge this requirement and secure its removal?
	Secondly, will he make some inquiries to the Charity Commission? I have written to it to ask whether such a requirement is in breach of the public benefit requirements contained in the Charities Act 2011. More generally, will he explain why there is no student loan scheme in place for postgraduate study, and does he accept that postgraduate qualifications are now sought by employers in many professions, that they provide a gateway to better-paid jobs and are therefore a crucial element in promoting social mobility? As I say, the Higher Education Commission has recommended this taskforce, so I hope the Minister is able to tell me that he accepts the recommendation, that he will get on with the taskforce and will come up with a scheme to enable people to have access.
	Damien Shannon walked into my constituency surgery just 10 days ago. Until that moment, I had no idea that Oxford university, and possibly others, was operating a system of selection of postgraduate students based not on academic merit alone, but on wealth and having immediate access to cash funds for rent, food, dining in college, clothes and for socialising. By its own admission, almost half the students who have the academic ability to pursue their studies are unable to take up their places because they simply do not have the money required. In my view, that is simply wrong. Not only does it crush the hopes and ambitions of these students who cannot afford to study at some of our best universities, it deprives our country and our economy of some of the brightest and best minds we could have. It is unfair and short-sighted.
	There is much talk about widening participation, of fair access, of encouraging social mobility and of using the talents of everyone, but I am afraid that as long as rules like this apply, postgraduate education will continue to be the preserve of those who have money behind them. Those who do not will be unable to contribute to the knowledge and prosperity of our country. We need a proper system of financial support and loans for postgraduate education; otherwise, those with talent and ability will remain excluded from our system and will not be able to achieve their potential and to succeed.
	I urge the Minister to have the courage to tackle this unfairness head on, and to demonstrate his personal commitment to fairness and social mobility. I have high expectations of him, as I have of many young people in my constituency. I know that those young people have skills and talent. Damien is an extremely talented young man, but at present he is not able to pursue the course that he wants to pursue and make the contribution that I know he is capable of making. I hope that the Minister will have some encouraging and optimistic words not just for Damien, but for the hundreds, indeed thousands, of students who are in a similar position throughout the country.

David Willetts: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) on raising this issue. Let me immediately agree with her that it involves some very important wider issues, to which I shall turn shortly. I hope she will appreciate, however, that although she has spoken about her constituent Damien Shannon in conditions of parliamentary privilege—and I have read about him in the newspapers as well—a legal case is pending as a result of a dispute between him and the Oxford college concerned. It would be difficult for me to take up some of the specifics to which she referred, not just because there is to be a court hearing but because of a wider issue, namely the autonomy of our universities. That autonomy was most recently embodied in legislation passed by the last Government, which made clear that it was not for Parliament—or Government—to instruct universities on their admission policies. It is therefore hard for me to discuss the specific case of this individual and this university.
	I do, however, completely understand the wider issues raised by the right hon. Lady. Let me begin by making it clear that post-graduate education is becoming far more important. There is an increasing range of jobs for which a postgraduate qualification is expected, and Alan Milburn was right to describe that as a growing challenge in the area of social mobility and the spreading of opportunity.
	I began my career as a civil servant, entering the Treasury as a former undergraduate with a single degree, but most people who join the Treasury now probably have a postgraduate qualification. I am not sure that it has made the conduct of economic policy any better, but that is beside the point. The qualification levels among people entering those jobs and, indeed, many of the professions has changed in a generation, and that is the background to the wider debate about postgraduate qualifications.
	I have followed the arguments about these matters very closely. In fact, in the past two and a half years we have hardly changed Government funding for postgraduate study. Notwithstanding all the controversy about our changes to undergraduate finance and despite the wider need for public expenditure control, we have been able—along with the Higher Education Funding Council—to sustain, broadly, past levels of funding for postgraduate education. HEFCE’s allocation for taught postgraduate provision is being maintained at about £135 million and it will provide about £235 million for postgraduate research degree supervision support, while the research councils will spend about £340 million on postgraduate research provision.
	I occasionally read about reductions in support for postgraduate provision. In tough times we have been able to maintain that support, but because postgraduate qualifications are becoming increasingly important, the salience and significance of the debate about access to them becomes ever greater. That is why the right hon. Lady has raised the issue this evening, and, as I have said, I accept her point—and Alan Milburn’s point—that we must not erect a new barrier to the spread of opportunity.

Hazel Blears: I understand the limitations on what the Minister can say about the individual case, but is he at all concerned that 47% of people who apply to Oxford are unable to take up their places, despite having the academic qualifications, simply because they cannot raise the money up front?

David Willetts: I would be concerned if any people who had the ability to benefit from education at any level were not able to take that opportunity. I have just heard the figure that the right hon. Lady cites, having not previously been aware of it. Successive Governments have not been able to extend a general financial support to postgraduate students. I do not want to get into discussing cases of individual universities, but Oxford university argues that it understands the need for more scholarship support so that people are not debarred from postgraduate study at Oxford by financial pressures. My understanding is that in only the most recent few months it has raised £30 million in extra support. I heard, as I am sure hat the administration governing bodies at Oxford will have done, the right hon. Lady’s points about the case for scholarships linked to need and financial circumstances. However, successive Governments have so far not been able to offer a general Exchequer support for postgraduate students. No Government have even been able to offer a means-tested maintenance grant for these students. It is very hard for any Government to go straight into that.
	Let me take the right hon. Lady through some of the wider arguments. First, like her, I have read the report by the Higher Education Commission—I have read several recent reports. I do not think I am breaking any confidence by saying that I recall being shadow Secretary of State, discussing this issue with the then Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, as he now is, and urging that the terms of reference for the Browne review be drawn so broadly as to include postgraduate provision—I remember proposing that to him. The terms of reference for Browne would have made it possible for Browne to make proposals for postgraduate provision, but Browne
	rather ducked the issue. He focused on these very old proposals on undergraduate provision, and all he said on postgraduates was that the situation needed to be monitored. We of course came into government and received the conclusions from the report, which the previous Government had commissioned. By and large—not perfectly—we acted on those provisions, including by asking Adrian Smith, who was then a senior official in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and is now at HEFCE, to monitor what is happening to postgraduate education. This matter was covered by the terms of reference for the inquiry that Labour set up and we have complied with the proposals from that report on monitoring the situation, but Browne was not able to crack the wider problem.

Hazel Blears: One of the rewards for winning a general election is that people move from opposition into government, so the Minister is now perfectly well placed to put into action the plans he had when he was in opposition. Will he grasp that opportunity and do so?

David Willetts: And of course one of the rewards of going from government into opposition is that people can call for proposals that they were never able to afford or deliver while they were in government, so it works both ways.
	I am open-minded on this issue. I accept that there are genuine concerns about social mobility, as expressed by Alan Milburn and others. I can see postgraduate qualifications becoming increasingly important. I am following with great interest the debate that has been launched with several different reports—the Higher Education Commission report is one but I want to touch on several others, too—on how our financing system could be changed to assist people into postgraduate provision.

David Lammy: Does the Minister recognise the urgency of the issue, given the changing nature of our economy? Students now need postgraduate education far more than previously and are also unlikely to have the money. At the same time, the sector has become truly global. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) has shown, the feeling is that institutions such as Oxford are more keen to take overseas students with the cash than local British students. The figures show that British students are losing out in these circumstances. That is why we need to grasp the problem, although I recognise that that is difficult.

David Willetts: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has experience of this area in government, about the importance of the global issue. I appreciate that both right hon. Members have rightly focused on the wider social mobility issue and neither has tried to claim that the changes to undergraduate finance are the problem. Of course, the monthly and annual repayments of student loans for undergraduates will fall under our new arrangements, so that is not the issue. Regardless of what is happening in undergraduate education, the debate is much more about social mobility and the changing economic scene.
	I welcome the interventions from several groups of experts. We have had the Higher Education Commission report that has been mentioned and an ingenious proposal from Tim Leunig of the CentreForum. Even the NUS, which in other contexts is against the loan and repayment
	scheme, has called for a postgraduate loan scheme, which is what I think the right hon. Lady was calling for. There are risks as well as attractions in that approach, and the biggest single risk is that as soon as we had a general public expenditure programme or loans scheme, the Treasury would immediately become interested in how many people were eligible, controlling postgraduate numbers and setting new conditions. It would be a great pity if this open and diverse sector found itself with a highly regulated loan scheme that constrained its growth.
	I do not accept and have not been persuaded at this stage that a Government-funded loan scheme is the answer, but I am happy to consider that proposal and others if people make them.

Hazel Blears: The Minister has said that he values the openness and diversity of the postgraduate sector. How diverse can it be when the requirement is to have £21,000 cash immediately available to pay up front? Is that not an issue that narrows the sector through selection by wealth rather than academic merit?

David Willetts: I fully understand that we cannot afford the sheer waste of talent if people who can benefit from any level of education do not participate. As well as the fairness argument, there is an efficiency argument and when fairness and efficiency point the same way, it leads to a clear recognition on both sides of the House of what must be done.
	We have now had the opportunity offered by the Browne report, which led simply to a proposal on monitoring, which HEFCE is doing. We have also had several interesting proposals from outside bodies. Only this afternoon, I spent two hours at HEFCE at a seminar on postgraduate finance that it organised to go through the possible options. Of course, I realise that some of the proposals are for loan schemes and there are other ideas, too. I want more career development loans to be taken up and I follow the figures with great interest, as I am keen to see whether there are barriers to people taking up such loans. I am not commenting on the specific case that was mentioned, and I do not know whether that option was investigated, but it is an important way of getting support and I welcome it.
	I am also very interested in whether universities, by fundraising and using links to alumni, can find ways of delivering needs-blind admissions to their postgraduate courses. This is a very good moment for the right hon. Lady to have called this debate as there are a range of ideas out there. All I can undertake is that I will carry on considering them. If anything looks to me to be well targeted and affordable at a time when public money is tight, I undertake to consider it very sympathetically. As yet, no idea has been proposed that meets all those criteria and we must be wary of extending the hand of Treasury control to postgraduate education, a sector that has hitherto not experienced that.
	The only other point I want to make in the limited time that is left is to stress that we will explore proposals made in the studies involving employers, universities and banks. We are keen to have those conversations and I am absolutely—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).